Odds and Ends

Ktronic1 wrote:

bobheckler wrote:

dboss wrote:Bob

I am not sure about him.  I still have my doubts.  DJ came having won a championship and I do not see the trade the same because Cousin would require significant assets.  Not the same as DJ.

I would probably vote no because unless you think Danny is lying.

Dboss

Dboss,I

Let me start with the easy one:  I ALWAYS assume Danny is lying when it comes to player personnel.  In fact, disinformation is his stock-and-trade.

As far as Cousins goes, yes, it would take significant assets.  With very few exceptions we don't have any assets I would consider too significant to give up for one of the top players in the league at his position, a position we desperately need filled.  None of our current roster will ever be one of the best at his position, except possibly Jae.  Rule 1 of trading:  whomever gets the best player in the trade wins.  With the POSSIBLE exception of Jae anybody and everybody we would give up would mean we won.  And Cousins would be eminently tradeable if that turns out to be wrong.  How many players besides Jae, Bradley and Thomas are hot, desirable trade baits, and none of those three are as hot as Boogie?

You could say getting the #2 pick in the draft (assuming LA catches Bkln and the Pingpong Gods smile upon us) is a significant asset, but that's what Philly thought about Evan Turner, who can't even start on our mediocre team.


bob.

I would take my chances on Cousins as well. All around I think he is better than Davis and getting him along with one more potential all star would catapult us into legitimate contenders.
Players I would like to stay who I consider untouchable- Jae, IT, and Smart. Everyone else is available and unfortunately for us to pull off a blockbuster one of my 3 untouchables will probably be a part of it.

It is a very interesting debate but again there are too many unknowns in the equation. Many think Cousins is a franchise level player. I am one that does not see him that way although he does score a lot of points.

Just because Celtics fans think he would be a good fit does not mean that the Kings would trade him. Anyways my focus would be on adding better shooters and getting a defensive minded center that can protect the rim. Between IT and Cousins no one would get any shots

dboss

But unlike us fans he is privy to tons of up close information that can at least give him the advantage of making judgments based on a much broader spectrum.

swish

dboss


"Between IT and Cousins no one would get any shots"

Hey, it worked for Jordan and Pippen - and Kobe and Shaq

swish

What exactly is a rim protector?

I read a definition that indicates a rim protector is a player that can defend 10 Feet out from the rim.  The value of a rim protector is very important especially for teams that do not have one.

Amir is our designated rim protector and Mickey appears to have the skills as well.  Neither of them are typical centers.  Thus it can be concluded that a rim protector may not be a center.

I have a question.  If the Celtics are not able to trade all of their 2nd round picks and they draft players but those players do not make the team, under what circumstances would the Celtics retain their rights?

Is it likely that Boston can pull off a big trade without including the Net's pick this year and not including either KO and Sully?

If Boston does nothing before the trade deadline who will be let go over the summer?  I think Turner and Lee will be gone along with James Young.  That opens up 3 Spots.  

My dream would be to draft Ben Simmons and then pickup  a shooting guard and a center.  If we do not get Simmons we should still be able to add a SF and SG and a center.  However Simmons would be an amazing addition.

Dboss

I'll take a stab at some of those questions.

1) I believe we retain a players rights if we do not sign him , until we renounce their rights.

2) yes they can make a trade without including Sully or KO. Sully is a RFA in the off-season though. a BIG trade is un-likely to me though.

3) Turner and Lee are UFA's and can sign anywhere. Sully and Zeller are RFA's and we can retain the right to match any offers they get.
so with most likely THREE first round picks and the FIRST pick in the second round from Philly......Danny could have a lot of players with few spots.

Simmons will likely go #1, so little chance Boston will get a shot at him. I think the Nets pick will end up more in the 4-6 range myself.

dboss wrote:What exactly is a rim protector?

I read a definition that indicates a rim protector is a player that can defend 10 Feet out from the rim. The value of a rim protector is very important especially for teams that do not have one.

To me, the definition is pretty simple: a player who is willing and able to effectively contest shots considered "at the rim" (within 3-4 feet) by either his own man or anyone who ventures into that territory, resulting in actual blocks, changed shots, or offensive players who don't even attempt shots because of the threat the rim protector presents.

Examples: Tyson Chandler in seasons past (I don't get the impression that he's as effective anymore), DeAndre Jordan, Andrew Bogut, Rudy Gobert.

The defiinition somewaht expands the role which I think makes sense.

3 or 4 feet seems very limited.

Would you agree Outside?

Dboss

We were just discussing this on another thread, while the best rim protectors may not be on the best teams, the top teams still have elite defensive bigs to do the dirty work and protect the rim.

Outside wrote:

dboss wrote:What exactly is a rim protector?

I read a definition that indicates a rim protector is a player that can defend 10 Feet out from the rim.  The value of a rim protector is very important especially for teams that do not have one.

To me, the definition is pretty simple: a player who is willing and able to effectively contest shots considered "at the rim" (within 3-4 feet) by either his own man or anyone who ventures into that territory, resulting in actual blocks, changed shots, or offensive players who don't even attempt shots because of the threat the rim protector presents.

Examples: Tyson Chandler in seasons past (I don't get the impression that he's as effective anymore), DeAndre Jordan, Andrew Bogut, Rudy Gobert.

Tim Duncan still controls games with his defensive abilities and those abilities have been essential in that teams record/dominance ever since he came into the league.

dboss wrote:The defiinition somewaht expands the role which I think makes sense.

3 or 4 feet seems very limited.

Would you agree Outside?

I'm not saying that a rim protector can't be an effective defender outside of 3-4 feet, but for the rim protection role, that's the key. A guy like Gobert expands that area of protection outside of 3-4 feet, but that's a bonus, not a minimum requirement. Rim protection, after all, is defending at the rim. The key is to significantly lower the opponent's number of made shots on what is supposed to be the highest percentage shots, layups and anything inside 3-4 feet.

I watched the GSW-Bulls game last night.  Another complete demolishment of a pretty good team by the Warriors.  There was one play that I saw that got my attention.

Curry was bringing the ball up at a jog, center, Thompson jogging with him on his left roughly elbow.  The Warriors already had a player in each corner and one down low in the paint.  So the floor was wide open except for the player down low, who was being 1/2 fronted to prevent an easy entry pass.  As Curry brought the ball over half court the player in the paint ran out to the 3pt arc, about 22'-23' out, on Curry's left and set a screen on Thompson's man.  As soon as the screen was set Thompson kicked it up a gear and flew past the pick straight to the rim and got an easy, over-the-to pass from Curry for a layup.

If you saw that and thought "old school" basketball, you would think "well, that was a defensive breakdown".  But in the new NBA, that's a spread pnr.  

In Bird's era, the paint defender would not have gone all the way out to the arc with his man, he would have hung back and defended the rim against the potential penetration from Thompson.  If Thompson stopped at the 3pt line and got the ball he would have tried a contested 3 and a lot of defenses back then would have lived with that shot selection.  Today's players are such good shooters that giving up an open 3 is not acceptable.  And it's not just the guards like Curry and Thompson, it's bigs like Kelly and Ryan Anderson and Porzingis, etal.  EVERYBODY except a few (e.g. Howard, Jordan, Drummond) can shoot 3s now.  If Kelly runs out to the 3pt arc to set the screen and his man doesn't come out with him Kelly gets an open 3 and that is not acceptable to defensive coaches.  If the defenders in the corner cheat too much they give up a short corner 3 and that's not acceptable neither.

I know that GSW has some of the best shooters in the league, so you MUST respect them, but everybody is trying to go that way, so that's the way it's going to go.

Why is Philly struggling a bit (aside from having a D-league quality back court)?  It's because neither of their starting front court can or will shoot from anywhere but in close.  Okafur goes out to the 3pt line to set a pick and you can fall off him.  Same with Noel.  That gives you a log jam in the paint on offense and on defense you can drag them away from the rim with shooting bigs.

This isn't your daddy's NBA anymore.


bob


.

Well stated bob. For me personally I've equally enjoyed each generation of basketball that I've had the good fortune to observe. For many others however there is a decided lean towards the " good old days " and a reluctance to embrace change. Learning from the past is one thing but living in the past is another.

swish

Perhaps street ball kids only learning to Dunk and do little else is a thing of the past more than not.

Now they stand out 25 feet and let loose instead.

beat

bobheckler wrote:I watched the GSW-Bulls game last night.  Another complete demolishment of a pretty good team by the Warriors.  There was one play that I saw that got my attention.

Curry was bringing the ball up at a jog, center, Thompson jogging with him on his left roughly elbow.  The Warriors already had a player in each corner and one down low in the paint.  So the floor was wide open except for the player down low, who was being 1/2 fronted to prevent an easy entry pass.  As Curry brought the ball over half court the player in the paint ran out to the 3pt arc, about 22'-23' out, on Curry's left and set a screen on Thompson's man.  As soon as the screen was set Thompson kicked it up a gear and flew past the pick straight to the rim and got an easy, over-the-to pass from Curry for a layup.

If you saw that and thought "old school" basketball, you would think "well, that was a defensive breakdown".  But in the new NBA, that's a spread pnr.  

In Bird's era, the paint defender would not have gone all the way out to the arc with his man, he would have hung back and defended the rim against the potential penetration from Thompson.  If Thompson stopped at the 3pt line and got the ball he would have tried a contested 3 and a lot of defenses back then would have lived with that shot selection.  Today's players are such good shooters that giving up an open 3 is not acceptable.  And it's not just the guards like Curry and Thompson, it's bigs like Kelly and Ryan Anderson and Porzingis, etal.  EVERYBODY except a few (e.g. Howard, Jordan, Drummond) can shoot 3s now.  If Kelly runs out to the 3pt arc to set the screen and his man doesn't come out with him Kelly gets an open 3 and that is not acceptable to defensive coaches.  If the defenders in the corner cheat too much they give up a short corner 3 and that's not acceptable neither.

I know that GSW has some of the best shooters in the league, so you MUST respect them, but everybody is trying to go that way, so that's the way it's going to go.

Why is Philly struggling a bit (aside from having a D-league quality back court)?  It's because neither of their starting front court can or will shoot from anywhere but in close.  Okafur goes out to the 3pt line to set a pick and you can fall off him.  Same with Noel.  That gives you a log jam in the paint on offense and on defense you can drag them away from the rim with shooting bigs.

This isn't your daddy's NBA anymore.


bob


.

Bob,

Bull's-eye.

Regards

interesting points on the changing of the NBA. so its more the improved outside shooting of players across the board that is the main change to the game?

I assume coaching also has played a role as more head coaches feel the 3 point shot has more and more value.

so what of players like Wilt, Shaq and all other low post only big men. ones that were ELITE players in their time?

would they be like Howard now and simply a dinosaur?

not that Howard is at their level, but I guess I am asking IF an elite low post player comes into the league, will the league have to change back to compensate?

I guess I still think if you have low post scorer who can hit over 60% od his shots and better than 75% of his FT's the odds say you can outscore the 3 point shooters most games. But what young big man wants to battle down low, when you stop and pop form the 3 I guess.

Would we credit Dirk with the first real Big shooting and making 3's consistently? He's the first one I seem to remember off the top of my head.

Robert Parish certainly never hung out at the 3 line. He did shoot one finally, didn't he?

db

dbrown4 wrote:Would we credit Dirk with the first real Big shooting and making 3's consistently?  He's the first one I seem to remember off the top of my head.  

Robert Parish certainly never hung out at the 3 line.  He did shoot one finally, didn't he?

db

 Its a short list of big men that Joined Nowitzki in the 3 point derby.
   See below link.

    http://bkref.com/tiny/zXNgI

  swish

Depends on your definition of "big man." Back in the day, there was this 6' 9" guy named Larry Bird who had a pretty good outside shot.

outside

My list was based on frequency of 3pt shots vs total field goal attempts. (Career figures)

Bird - 0.10
Nowitzki - 0.20
Lewis - 0.37
Turkoglu - 0.36
Thomas - 0.33
Robinson - 0.21

 swish

swish wrote:outside

My list was based on frequency of 3pt shots vs total field goal attempts. (Career figures)

Bird - 0.10
Nowitzki - 0.20
Lewis - 0.37
Turkoglu - 0.36
Thomas - 0.33
Robinson - 0.21

Yeah, I get that. But the three-point shot was viewed as a poor percentage play in the 70's and 80's -- even Bird viewed it with disdain -- which lead to teams taking very few three-point attempts.

The fact that Dirk is tall and played in an era when three-point shooting was given increased emphasis is a happenstance more than a significant development. If Bird were playing today, he'd be shooting lots of threes, and he'd be shooting them well.

Outside wrote:

swish wrote:outside

My list was based on frequency of 3pt shots vs total field goal attempts. (Career figures)

Bird - 0.10
Nowitzki - 0.20
Lewis - 0.37
Turkoglu - 0.36
Thomas - 0.33
Robinson - 0.21

Yeah, I get that. But the three-point shot was viewed as a poor percentage play in the 70's and 80's -- even Bird viewed it with disdain -- which lead to teams taking very few three-point attempts.

The fact that Dirk is tall and played in an era when three-point shooting was given increased emphasis is a happenstance more than a significant development. If Bird were playing today, he'd be shooting lots of threes, and he'd be shooting them well.

Bird was ahead of the time quite frequently and that included the art of shooting 3's. In 1985-86, 0.10 of Birds shots were from 3 point range vs a league average of 0.037. In 2015-16 its a league average of 0.281 and look at Curry's 3pt frequency - o.425

swish

swish wrote:

Outside wrote:

swish wrote:outside

My list was based on frequency of 3pt shots vs total field goal attempts. (Career figures)

Bird - 0.10
Nowitzki - 0.20
Lewis - 0.37
Turkoglu - 0.36
Thomas - 0.33
Robinson - 0.21

Yeah, I get that. But the three-point shot was viewed as a poor percentage play in the 70's and 80's -- even Bird viewed it with disdain -- which lead to teams taking very few three-point attempts.

The fact that Dirk is tall and played in an era when three-point shooting was given increased emphasis is a happenstance more than a significant development. If Bird were playing today, he'd be shooting lots of threes, and he'd be shooting them well.

Bird was ahead of the time quite frequently and that included the art of shooting  3's.   In 1985-86,  0.10 of Birds shots were from 3 point range vs a league average of 0.037. In 2015-16 its a league average of 0.281 and look at Curry's 3pt frequency - o.425

 swish

Sam used to boast how his beloved 60's Celtics could play any style and attack in waves, etc, well the 86 Celtics also were built to play any style and had the shooters and passers to play with the elite of today. If Bird was committed to bombing away with the 3 ball, I have no doubt he could put up real breathtaking numbers. Besides mugging you inside both ends with the greatest frontline in history, they ran the fastbreak really well and the trailer always got a wide open look. Telling Bird, Wedman, Ainge and Sichting to work on more 3's and figure out a way to take more would have been no problem for that crew.

Cavs are in big trouble, the Bulls, in the second game of a back to back, after losing to us last night, just beat them no problem in a game Derick Rose shot 5-21. Saw alot of holes in Cavs. There is a worse defender in the league than Roy Hibbert, his name is Kevin Love and in every big game I've ever seen, his shot is off and his offense does not compensate for his defensive liabilities. Lebron's outside shooting has been off all year, not good in this new era of the team that hits more 3's and at a better % usually wins. He looked like Marcus Smart and was bricking everything from outside tonite, he also is 31 and doesn't play with the abandon and energy of 3 or 4 years ago. The team doesn't play well together, they don't seem to be playing for each other. When they went small, Rose would just attack the lane and feed the ball for easy close range baskets. Love and Irving are supposed to be all stars, if they are/were, where is the ability to make them better that the rare handful of superstars have?

cowens/oldschool wrote:Cavs are in big trouble, the Bulls, in the second game of a back to back, after losing to us last night, just beat them no problem in a game Derick Rose shot 5-21. Saw alot of holes in Cavs. There is a worse defender in the league than Roy Hibbert, his name is Kevin Love and in every big game I've ever seen, his shot is off and his offense does not compensate for his defensive liabilities. Lebron's outside shooting has been off all year, not good in this new era of the team that hits more 3's and at a better % usually wins. He looked like Marcus Smart and was bricking everything from outside tonite, he also is 31 and doesn't play with the abandon and energy of 3 or 4 years ago. The team doesn't play well together, they don't seem to be playing for each other. When they went small, Rose would just attack the lane and feed the ball for easy close range baskets. Love and Irving are supposed to be all stars, if they are/were, where is the ability to make them better that the rare handful of superstars have?

I guess the problem in Cleveland wasn't Blatt anymore than the problem in Houston was McHale.


bob


.

cowens/oldschool wrote:

swish wrote:

Outside wrote:

swish wrote:outside

My list was based on frequency of 3pt shots vs total field goal attempts. (Career figures)

Bird - 0.10
Nowitzki - 0.20
Lewis - 0.37
Turkoglu - 0.36
Thomas - 0.33
Robinson - 0.21

Yeah, I get that. But the three-point shot was viewed as a poor percentage play in the 70's and 80's -- even Bird viewed it with disdain -- which lead to teams taking very few three-point attempts.

The fact that Dirk is tall and played in an era when three-point shooting was given increased emphasis is a happenstance more than a significant development. If Bird were playing today, he'd be shooting lots of threes, and he'd be shooting them well.

Bird was ahead of the time quite frequently and that included the art of shooting  3's.   In 1985-86,  0.10 of Birds shots were from 3 point range vs a league average of 0.037. In 2015-16 its a league average of 0.281 and look at Curry's 3pt frequency - o.425

 swish

Sam used to boast how his beloved 60's Celtics could play any style and attack in waves, etc, well the 86 Celtics also were built to play any style and had the shooters and passers to play with the elite of today. If Bird was committed to bombing away with the 3 ball, I have no doubt he could put up real breathtaking numbers. Besides mugging you inside both ends with the greatest frontline in history, they ran the fastbreak really well and the trailer always got a wide open look. Telling Bird, Wedman, Ainge and Sichting to work on more 3's and figure out a way to take more would have been no problem for that crew.

cowens

Below link has 4 Celts in the top 18 based on 3 point shooting percentages. Not too shabby.

http://bkref.com/tiny/xnune

swish