PDA

View Full Version : Artest's defense: System, or Player??



Roy Munson
08-09-2004, 04:11 PM
How much did Ron Artest benefit from the Pacers' defensive system last year?

In 2002-2003 he was a good defender, but it wasn't at all like he was in 2003-2004. So I'm wondering how much of his defensive success was due to the Pacers' defensive system.

And, IF he is traded to Sac, what kind of defender do you think he will be there. Rick Adelman has never been known for coaching teams with a stifling defense.

Part of what makes me ask this is because I notice the difference in Freddy Jones. He was never known as a great defender, even in college. Adequate, or good, but nothing beyond that. Then last year, all of a sudden, he's real good on defense. This makes me think that the Pacers' defensive system had a lot to do with it.

I wonder if Walsh-Bird-Carlisle think that maybe they can stick any team out on the floor, and if they follow the system, they will be a good or great defensive unit.

ROCislandWarrior
08-09-2004, 04:15 PM
"I wonder if Walsh-Bird-Carlisle think that maybe they can stick any team out on the floor, and if they follow the system, they will be a good or great defensive unit."


If Artest is traded for Peja, then I am almost positive that DW and LB believe it is Rick's system that sets the tone for the D.

Hicks
08-09-2004, 04:19 PM
Our team defense was mediocre in 2002-03, and we had Ron Artest, and I'd say overall even more individual good defenders than we did last year.

Slick Pinkham
08-09-2004, 04:20 PM
In 2002-2003 he was a good defender, but it wasn't at all like he was in 2003-2004.

I disagree completely. I think that he was every bit as good in 2002-2003, but he was such a head case with all of the flagrants and missed so many games that it was overshadowed.

Unclebuck
08-09-2004, 04:20 PM
Part of me does not want to dignify this question by responding.

Fred Jones was an excellent defender in college and the few times we saw him in his rookie season it was obvious he was going to be an excellent defender.

Artest is a great defender no matter what the system is.

I could make the case that Ronnie was better defensively in 2003 than he was in 2004, indivudual defense at least.
In fact Artest had to sacrifice his individual defense a little this past season. He had fewer steals and took a lot fewer chances

Arcadian
08-09-2004, 04:21 PM
The NBA is more of a player's league than a coaches league. Yes, a coach can improve the defense but it won't be great without good players. The better the players you have the more you can do.

indygeezer
08-09-2004, 04:26 PM
Defense schmefense...I'll tell ya what I see the problem is. The kid hates to lose so badly that when the pressure of the play-offs gets really REALLY intense...he can't handle it. That's why he becomes "selfish" and cranks up 30 foot bricks. That's why he gets frustrated and clocks the man he's defending, and that's why his off court behavior becomes more and more eratic. He can't handle pressure...medication or not.

ROCislandWarrior
08-09-2004, 04:44 PM
Defense schmefense...I'll tell ya what I see the problem is. The kid hates to lose so badly that when the pressure of the play-offs gets really REALLY intense...he can't handle it. That's why he becomes "selfish" and cranks up 30 foot bricks. That's why he gets frustrated and clocks the man he's defending, and that's why his off court behavior becomes more and more eratic. He can't handle pressure...medication or not.

Artest need to win is so great, it has become his biggest flaw. I think he is obsessed with it and he is imbalanced somewhere inside his brain. And since it affects the whole team in a negative way (ex. "chucking up a 30ft shot, holding the ball for 15 seconds trying to bull his way to the hoop, hitting rip in the face...pick one of the others"), does this make Ron a cancer? Yes

And we have no idea what goes on in the locker-room, but we do hear rumors and they are mostly negative.

Now I love Ron Artest, and this year when he was doing so well containing his behavior I thought he might be a new man. Then the Playoffs happened and the **** hit the fan again.:(

He is such a physical specimen...but that is only 1/2 the game...the other half is mental.

Hicks
08-09-2004, 04:46 PM
Defense schmefense...I'll tell ya what I see the problem is. The kid hates to lose so badly that when the pressure of the play-offs gets really REALLY intense...he can't handle it. That's why he becomes "selfish" and cranks up 30 foot bricks. That's why he gets frustrated and clocks the man he's defending, and that's why his off court behavior becomes more and more eratic. He can't handle pressure...medication or not.

We have a winner.

Young
08-09-2004, 04:50 PM
Fred Jones was an excellent defender in college and the few times we saw him in his rookie season it was obvious he was going to be an excellent defender.

Yep and I think he just never got credit for it.

I mean when did people start to take some notice in him? When he won the dunk contest. The Dunk Contest gave him exposirue and confidence to play better and get more time.

To answer the question I think it is both.

Ovbiously Ron Artest is a great defender no matter what team you put him on. Alot has to do naturaly he is great but some with the team. I thought Ron was the DPOY a couple of seasons ago but never got the award or credit because he was a pain in the ***.

Kegboy
08-09-2004, 04:55 PM
Part of me does not want to dignify this question by responding.

Fred Jones was an excellent defender in college and the few times we saw him in his rookie season it was obvious he was going to be an excellent defender.

Artest is a great defender no matter what the system is.

I could make the case that Ronnie was better defensively in 2003 than he was in 2004, indivudual defense at least.
In fact Artest had to sacrifice his individual defense a little this past season. He had fewer steals and took a lot fewer chances



UB hits the nail exactly on the head here. Especially how he had to sacrifice for Carlisle's system.

The conotation that Artest has Rick to thank for being a great defender is stupifying.

Roy Munson
08-09-2004, 05:03 PM
Part of me does not want to dignify this question by responding.

Fred Jones was an excellent defender in college and the few times we saw him in his rookie season it was obvious he was going to be an excellent defender.

Artest is a great defender no matter what the system is.

I could make the case that Ronnie was better defensively in 2003 than he was in 2004, indivudual defense at least.
In fact Artest had to sacrifice his individual defense a little this past season. He had fewer steals and took a lot fewer chances



UB hits the nail exactly on the head here. Especially how he had to sacrifice for Carlisle's system.

The conotation that Artest has Rick to thank for being a great defender is stupifying.

You guys are joking, right?

You think the number of steals is what makes a player a great defender? You can lead the league in steals and be a crappy defender if you take enough stupid chances.

Carlisle DID make Artest a better defender by making him play better team defense. It's not a one-on-one game. It's still five on five and the bottom line is still winning, which the Pacers did a lot of last year due to Carlisles defensive SYSTEM. That system is not going to go away, even if Ron Artest goes away.

beast23
08-09-2004, 05:25 PM
Roy, I think it's a matter of semantics.

Artest is a damn good MAN-ON-MAN defender, no matter how you slice it.

Since I love watching Artest play defense, I often take a chunk of time during Q1 to do nothing but watch Artest.

What I learned is that there is definitely a difference in the way that he plays man-on-man defense between the two seasons.

In 2002-2003, he basically smothered his man, no matter where his man was on the court. He positioned himself between the man and the ball, while also staying goal-side preventing his man from even seeing a pass, even if his man was clear across court and 35-40 feet from the ball. He had his hands and body all over the opposing player.

Last season, his method of playing man-on-man defense was not to concern himself so much with positioning himself between the man and the ball, but to make certain that he was always goal-side of the man. When his man was across the court from the ball, Carlisle's defensive stategy had Artest sagging quite a bit off of his man toward the paint.

In 2002-2003 he was a significantly more frustrating and physical defender on the individual man he was guarding. But in 2003-2004, I would agree that he was a much better team defender.

I think against certain opponents, if you allow Artest to revert to his 2002-2003 form, he would have better success in holding down an individual opponent. If you allow Ron the freedom to defend the opponent tightly anywhere on the floor, he'll manhandle his opponent and wear him down.

If you ask him to strictly adhere to team defensive principles, then his man will have more energy left to hurt us late in the game.

ChicagoJ
08-09-2004, 05:49 PM
Beast again hits the nail on the head, I mostly agree with UB and Kegboy.

Ron is a tremdous one-on-one defender, but under Isiah he was asked, and he was so intent on shutting his man down, that he wan't very effective in help/ team situations.

But I also agree with Roy, in Rick's system, I'm really not worried about who we put out there.

Roy, remember when Micheal Williams led the league in steals while playing for the blue and gold? He was a pretty bad defender who successfully gambled occasionally and was notorious for getting Rik, Tank, and Dreiling into early foul trouble when his gambles went awry...

beast23
08-09-2004, 06:04 PM
But...

I do think we have to be a little careful about who we throw out on the floor together.

For example, Reggie is an adequate defender who has lost a step. Tinsley has improved and now is an adequate defender. If we acquired him, Peja would be an adequate defender.

Having these three guys on the floor together might produce some points offensively, but on the defensive end of the floor we could have some real problems, with or without Rick's system, because they are not always successful staying in front of their men.

The more times we allow an opponent's perimeter player to penetrate the lane, the more likely we will see our now thinner frontcourt in foul trouble.

Having Al, we could get away with a couple of frontcourt players in foul trouble. In the coming season, I think two frontcourt players in foul trouble translates into a Loss more often than not.

My main point is that I DO NOT think that the pieces are always interchangeable within Rick's defensive system.

ChicagoJ
08-09-2004, 06:18 PM
Well, Reggie isn't really good enough to play defense in anybody's system at his age.

I was thinking of Tinsley/ Jackson/ Peja.

I was considering NBA caliber players, I'm not implying that a defense of Me, Kegboy, UB, Beast and Roy - even if Rick was our coach - could win a championship.

Roy Munson
08-09-2004, 06:27 PM
I was considering NBA caliber players, I'm not implying that a defense of Me, Kegboy, UB, Beast and Roy - even if Rick was our coach - could win a championship.

I'm glad you qualified that because I am a CRAPPY defender.

SycamoreKen
08-09-2004, 08:12 PM
In the NBA, it doesn't matter what system you have. If you ain't got the horses to run you ain't winnin'. Just ask Phil Jackson.

Hicks
08-09-2004, 08:27 PM
And I say we still have those horses, with or without Ron. Ron helps, for sure, but he's not going to make or break our team defense. If he did, we wouldn't have been so mediocre as a team on D in 2003.

SycamoreKen
08-09-2004, 08:39 PM
I disagree. That is the same thinking the Spurs had when Jackson and Kerr didn't come back last season. They didn't have someone that could not down the jumper under pressure and folded. No one on the team, Jackson included, would be nearly the defender Artest is. Artest has the ability, like Bowen, to get the other guys distracted from their game. The refs also give him more leeway to be physical.

Hicks
08-09-2004, 08:44 PM
JO, Jeff, Jackson, F.Jones, Johnson, Croshere are all at least above average defenders. Tinsley, Stojakovic, J.Jones are at least average defenders. I'd say Bender's probably average too.

Under a staff like ours, that's plenty of horses to have a good team defesne.

Unclebuck
08-10-2004, 12:17 AM
JO, Jeff, Jackson, F.Jones, Johnson, Croshere are all at least above average defenders. Tinsley, Stojakovic, J.Jones are at least average defenders. I'd say Bender's probably average too.

Under a staff like ours, that's plenty of horses to have a good team defesne.

Hicks, J.O, Jeff, Jax, Fred and AJ should be very insulted that you lumped Croshere in with those guys.

Croshere is an average defender at the very best and he does benefit greatly from Carlisle's / Browns defensive system

But Croshere is not an above average defender by any means.

Arcadian
08-10-2004, 12:17 AM
Cro is above average? J. Jones is average? I don't know about those two Hicks.

Hicks
08-10-2004, 12:22 AM
I'll give Cro to just average if it'd make everyone happy. James Jones doesn't play much, but I still remember him in the preseason, and he's decent on D.

Hicks
08-10-2004, 12:22 AM
My point was, we don't have many or even a few bad defensive players, and actually a good deal of above average ones. Enough that with the terrific coaching staff we have I'm not worried about our team D.

Anthem
08-10-2004, 12:33 AM
Player. No question.

The system's good, too, but take a look at Detroit. Any team Larry coaches is going to be a good defensive team. But Ben Wallace is Ben Wallace.

Ron Artest is Ron Artest. He'd make the Dallas Mavericks a decent defensive squad against 75% of the teams in the NBA.

Anthem
08-10-2004, 12:34 AM
And calling Croshere "average" is being generous to me, but if we talk about center (the only position he should be playing), then he could maybe be considered above average.

Croshere should play at center because he's too slow to defend any SFs and many PFs.