Proper Positions & the Raps' Dilemma (Doug Smith's Opinion - Post 37)

[Tim W.]

If Bargnani could average 8.5 or higher rebs a game, no one would give a shart where he scored from.

This is most definitely true. Although I'd also like good defense, too, which is why I'd never want guys like Al Jefferson, David Lee, Carlos Boozer or Amare Stoudemire on my team.

[Tim W.]

If Bargnani could average 8.5 or higher rebs a game, no one would give a shart where he scored from.

This is most definitely true. Although I'd also like good defense, too, which is why I'd never want guys like Al Jefferson, David Lee, Carlos Boozer or Amare Stoudemire on my team.

[Apollo]

Doesn't Shaq use a variation of the hook shot?

So let's say yes even, one guy on one team out of 30...

[Buddahfan]

If Bargnani could average 8.5 or higher rebs a game, no one would give a shart where he scored from.

I don't care where he scores from as long as he does it efficiently with a high PPP rate (points per possession)

[jeff_hostetler]

The idea of the numbers is totally outdated in how the game is now played.

Far too many of the stars today play multiple positions that I can't even count them all.
Give me a starting unit of 3 KGs in his prime along with 2 CP3s, a decent bench and Phil Jackson or Pops as the coach and I could beat any team in the NBA probably 95% of the time.

In particular that last quote is simply ridiculous. "Give me 5 michael jordans in his prime...." Obviously if you're talking about some of the greatest players to ever play, you make adjustments.

But 95% of the teams 95% of the time do not have any player even close. I'm not talking about super teams, superstars or the elite teams. I'm talking about NBA teams, and the sport of basketball. I guess this belongs in the everything nba section, but whatever.

There's a difference between having an ability to play multiple positions, and being excellent at one of them. Switch hitters in baseball are better on one side of the plate. Garnett, or Bosh, for that matter, can play at the 5 spot, but they shouldn't and don't because they're better suited for the 4. Bargnani doesn't play under the hoop, and he doesn't jump for boards. He doesn't fight for position. He plays like a guard in a 7 foot body. It's his size that allows him to guard opposing 5's, that's all. He requires the freedom to move from beyond the rim and paint to be effective, that's why i think of his as a four. If the Raps had someone to anchor the paint, around which Bargs could pivot, the team's frontcourt would be significantly improved.

As well, just because teams today - teams that build and cater WAY too hardcore around their stars - play around with positions, doesn't necessarily mean basketball should and will always be played that way. Boston, Los Angeles, San Antonio, Detroit, Dallas - the successful teams of the last decade - all played 1,2,3,4,5. They played, and play, real, classic basketball (triangle is still classic, as it still requires players in their proper positions - this is why Jackson refused the give up Bynum when Kobe was threatening to walk, and why they don't switch Kobe to PG or SF). With the right players, playing properly, all other things being equal, the classic set up simply trumps the more unorthodox styles, and it's really only when you've got the superstars and a number of players in hybrid bodies with high IQ's that you can begin to legitimately play around with this formula.

[jeff_hostetler]

Also, it wasn't my intention to have so much attention focused on Bargnani. The original post had as much to do with Barbosa and Weems as anyone else. The Raps have a problem in that too many players, at least in this forum and in Triano's coaching style (small sample, admittedly), are idealized as being great because they are able to move around and play a number of positions. The Raps should not play Barbosa at the the point. Weems is too small for the small forward. The adaptability of the Raps' players is a bad philosophy to carry into the season, in my opinion.

The team needs the confidence in its management and coaches, the authority, to force players into the proper roles. Playing around with crazy line ups just makes the players confused and doesn't allow them to form effective units. If Derozan isn't playing primarily at the 3, the Raps simply won't be utilizing their players effectively, as they'll have 3 2-guards vying for what should only be 2 real spots. But all three are good enough to warrant a bunch of minutes.

I'm pretty sure Derozan will start at the 2, most likely with Jack and Kleiza. But then you've got Calderon, Barbosa and...Wright? as a second unit? That's underselling the talent on the roster and plays with serious deficiencies in both sets, notably no playmakers in the first unit, and probably the league's worst 1-2 defensive tandem in Calderon and Barbosa. I said it in the last post, but for some reason I feel like repeating it, but Calderon, Weems and Derozan need to play as a 3 man unit, as do Jack, Barbosa and Kleiza. That's the best way to get the best production out of all six players. But then a decision needs to be made: do you start Jack's unit, or Derozan's unit? Both have consequences to the future. I'd prefer Jack's unit start, as I said, not so much because Jack is better than Calderon (he's not), but because they're the most veteran unit and match up better against other teams. The Calderon unit would have the upper hand on a majority of other team's second units. Other configurations just don't provide enough playing time for the Raps' key back court players.

[Apollo]

Doug Smith's Opinion

Time to re-think this whole numbering thing

We do seem to have a fascination with numbers here in our little corner of the world, don’t we? Averages, true average, ratings, points, assists, rebounds, whatever.

But maybe it’s time to retire some.

Like 2, 3, 4, 5.

When it comes to basketball positions, that is.

I think we’ve seen enough change in the game, and interchangeable parts, that to suggest some one is a shooting guard as opposed to a small forward, or a centre rather than a power forward, should probably be re-thought.

I know a lot of coaches have already done away with the distinction, they talk of wings and bigs rather than the traditional numeric system that’s been around for eons.

Guess it came up with all the hullabaloo I’ve been seeing over the likes of Andrea Bargnani and Amir Johnson and to a lesser extent Reggie Evans and even Ed Davis.

None of them are what consider “true” fours or fives but the question is: Does it matter?

The way the game is evolving is towards multi-faceted players and styles, everyone is searching out guys who can do a little bit of everything and can go to different spots on the floor and do different things.

No, Andrea is not a centre in the old school of thought and neither is Johnson. But what’s Pau Gasol? A power forward? Sure, when he’s on the court with Andrew Bynum I guess he is. But what about when he’s playing alongside Lamar Odom? Who’s the “centre” then?

What about Tim Duncan? Four? Sure, maybe next to someone like, oh, Tiago Splitter this year or David Robinson in the past? Or a five? Yeah, when Matt Bonner’s at the other frontcourt position, sure he is.

Chris Bosh? A centre? Sure, sometimes, I guess. Sometimes not.

Look at the twos and threes. What’s Kobe? How about LeBron? Do you really think either of them should be pigeon-holed? No.

Sure, there are those who still should be classified the olden way, I suppose. Shaq, who’s pretty much done; Yao, who’ll play half a game this year apparently; and Dwight Howard, one of the true “centres” left in the game. I’m sure there are others but they are the exceptions that prove a new rule around the game.

So instead of fixating on numeric positions and carrying on the way they did in the day of Wilt and Russell and the like, perhaps it’s time to see them for what they are:

Basketball players.

Source: Doug Smith's Blog

[Buddahfan]

You just know that Smith reads Raptors Republic