PDA

View Full Version : Let's see...



bulletproof
06-13-2004, 04:49 AM
Ron averages 18 ppg.

Al averages 13 ppg.

Let's say Ron is traded and Al moves up into the starting role and continues to average 13 ppg.

That's a loss of 5 ppg.

Reggie averages 10 ppg.

McGrady averages 28 ppg.

That's a plus of 18 ppg.

Subtract the 5 we lose with Ron and that's a gain of 13 ppg.

Now, Ron typically holds top scorers to 3-4 points below their average.

That's still a gain of 9-10 ppg.


I'll take it. McGrady spreading the floor and knocking down 3s, with JO, Al and Foster hammering away on the inside. :shudder:

JOneal7
06-13-2004, 04:57 AM
of course...and tmac will kill teams in crunch time because they will have to play him strait up. It would be almost not fair.

King Mob
06-13-2004, 05:03 AM
Kobe and SHaq lite.

Would Al be satisfied being the 5th option on offense? (options 1-4 being JO and TMac) If you were able to get TMac for some deal involving Artest, I would think you'd be better served getting a glue guy type 3 who'll play solid D and bring energy and hustle, but doesn't absolutely need to score. Someone like a Tayshaun or Bruce Bowen.

bulletproof
06-13-2004, 10:59 AM
Kobe and Shaq lite.

Eh, no comparison. First, there are no players who compare to Shaq. Second, JO is young and improving, whereas Shaq is aging and slowing down.

A 25-year-old McGrady and a 25-year-old JO would be a lethal combination for several years to come.

And let's not forget, Shaq and Kobe were the core of teams that did win 3 championships together.

beast23
06-13-2004, 12:32 PM
Kobe and Shaq lite.

Eh, no comparison. First, there are no players who compare to Shaq. Second, JO is young and improving, whereas Shaq is aging and slowing down.

A 25-year-old McGrady and a 25-year-old JO would be a lethal combination for several years to come.

And let's not forget, Shaq and Kobe were the core of teams that did win 3 championships together.
Now BP, if it were only that simple.

But even you would admit that simple addition and subtraction is not rational.

I mean, do you really think we would actually pick up an additional spread of 9-10 points by pulling off the trade.

Hell, if we did then hooray. 82-0 here we come!!!

Bball
06-13-2004, 01:04 PM
It could be argued that Artest's intensity raises the defense of his teammates.

So how do you plug that into the stats?

-Bball

bulletproof
06-13-2004, 01:05 PM
I mean, do you really think we would actually pick up an additional spread of 9-10 points by pulling off the trade.

Hell, if we did then hooray. 82-0 here we come!!!

You mean... our offense wouldn't improve with the addition of McGrady if Al stayed consistent and JO continued to improve?

:alcohol:

bulletproof
06-13-2004, 01:10 PM
It could be argued that Artest's intensity raises the defense of his teammates.

So how do you plug that into the stats?

-Bball

Defense is a team philosophy. It's at the core of Rick's approach to the game.

Young
06-13-2004, 05:13 PM
It could be argued that Artest's intensity raises the defense of his teammates.

So how do you plug that into the stats?

-Bball

Defense is a team philosophy. It's at the core of Rick's approach to the game.

Exactly!

Bball
06-13-2004, 06:14 PM
It could be argued that Artest's intensity raises the defense of his teammates.

So how do you plug that into the stats?

-Bball

Defense is a team philosophy. It's at the core of Rick's approach to the game.

And if Ron inspires the players to play better defense as a team how do you account for that in stats?

-Bball

bulletproof
06-13-2004, 06:18 PM
It could be argued that Artest's intensity raises the defense of his teammates.

So how do you plug that into the stats?

-Bball

Defense is a team philosophy. It's at the core of Rick's approach to the game.

And if Ron inspires the players to play better defense as a team how do you account for that in stats?

-Bball

Oh, I see, Ron gets credit for the team's overall defensive play which would surely crumble if he wasn't there as a motivating factor. Got it.

Young
06-13-2004, 06:22 PM
I wouldn't exactly call Artest inspiring. ;)

Bball
06-13-2004, 06:51 PM
It could be argued that Artest's intensity raises the defense of his teammates.

So how do you plug that into the stats?

-Bball

Defense is a team philosophy. It's at the core of Rick's approach to the game.

And if Ron inspires the players to play better defense as a team how do you account for that in stats?

-Bball

Oh, I see, Ron gets credit for the team's overall defensive play which would surely crumble if he wasn't there as a motivating factor. Got it.

I said 'If'....
I'm asking not stating things here. Go easy on me... it is Sunday! ;)

-Bball

Jose Slaughter
06-13-2004, 08:47 PM
Bulletproof

I think the idea of Artest raising the level of the teams D might have some merit.

It is similar to bringing a high energy player off the bench to spark the offense.

Just as you have mentioned before. Artest off court issues have an effect on the team. These actions can not be measured by numbers. If that is true, & I have no doubt it is, then what he brings while on the court may not be able to be measured with just numbers alone.

That is where the "team chemistry" issue comes into play, I guess.

bulletproof
06-14-2004, 12:23 AM
Bulletproof

I think the idea of Artest raising the level of the teams D might have some merit.

It is similar to bringing a high energy player off the bench to spark the offense.

Just as you have mentioned before. Artest off court issues have an effect on the team. These actions can not be measured by numbers. If that is true, & I have no doubt it is, then what he brings while on the court may not be able to be measured with just numbers alone.

That is where the "team chemistry" issue comes into play, I guess.

I wouldn't disagree with you, Jose. And perhaps I've given the wrong impression. I do like Ron as a player and I do believe his intensity raises everyone else's on the team. But speaking only of his prowess on the court while ignoring of his antics off the court is simply impossible for me to do. I can't separate the two. I'd like to see that all work itself out somehow, although I think it's doubtful. I'd like nothing more than to trade Al (and change) for a good SG and have Ron's issues become irrelevant.

beast23
06-14-2004, 01:43 AM
I mean, do you really think we would actually pick up an additional spread of 9-10 points by pulling off the trade.

Hell, if we did then hooray. 82-0 here we come!!!

You mean... our offense wouldn't improve with the addition of McGrady if Al stayed consistent and JO continued to improve?

:alcohol:Assuming T-Mac were able to give 35-38 minutes a game, I don't think there is any doubt that we would score more points.

But I also think it is very difficult to gauge how many additional points we would give up.

But tell me. Do you think it is possible for the Pacers to acquire a player other than T-Mac to significantly improve their perimeter shooting? The obvious direction I'm heading is to be able to open up the middle without having to sacrifice Ron. Maybe not even Al.

If you would agree that is possible, I would submit that it is possible to boost our offensive output without assuming any risks defensively. Because, in my opinion, to fill the hole we have in our need for a perimeter shooter, all we need is a player that can hit perimeter shots, it really doesn't matter whether we pay him $3M per year or $14M per year, now does it?

The less we have to pay for a perimeter shooter, the more likely it is that we can also get another big. But the player we acquire at SG has to be a shooter and he has to be somewhat consistent.

bulletproof
06-14-2004, 01:54 AM
Assuming T-Mac were able to give 35-38 minutes a game, I don't think there is any doubt that we would score more points.

But I also think it is very difficult to gauge how many additional points we would give up.

But tell me. Do you think it is possible for the Pacers to acquire a player other than T-Mac to significantly improve their perimeter shooting? The obvious direction I'm heading is to be able to open up the middle without having to sacrifice Ron. Maybe not even Al.

If you would agree that is possible, I would submit that it is possible to boost our offensive output without assuming any risks defensively. Because, in my opinion, to fill the hole we have in our need for a perimeter shooter, all we need is a player that can hit perimeter shots, it really doesn't matter whether we pay him $3M per year or $14M per year, now does it?

The less we have to pay for a perimeter shooter, the more likely it is that we can also get another big. But the player we acquire at SG has to be a shooter and he has to be somewhat consistent.

I agree with everything you said. See my post above.