Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Positional Certainty

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 1
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous template Next
  • #1

    Positional Certainty

    http://www.thetwomangame.com/2010/08...o-square-zero/

    By: Rob Mahoney


    Positional certainty has never been a luxury the Dallas Mavericks could afford during the Dirk Nowitzki era. Yet year after year, the team’s flaws are diagnosed according to the standards of a conventional lineup. Dallas needs a better center. A better shooting guard. A better point guard. Hell, anything that isn’t power forward. Dirk has been the one constant, and despite his unconventional and unique talents, the success of his team is ultimately measured by way of an antiquated tradition.

    No longer. Or at least as minimally as possible in this space.

    It may be naive to think that the mainstream basketball audience will soon abandon the five conventional positions, but that doesn’t mean those of us in this corner of the universe can’t strive to be better, smarter basketball fans. I’m ready to take a hop (more than a step, but well short of a leap) in the way we classify players. With that, I’ll cue Drew Cannon of Basketball Prospectus:

    But what do you really need from a lineup?

    On defense, you need to be able to guard your opponents. This means you have to be ready for speeds and heights of all kinds. You need to have a player capable of guarding each of the five traditional C-PF-SF-SG-PG positions. We’ll call the players capable of defending each position “D1” through “D5,” respectively, with speed/athleticism on the x-axis and height/strength on the y-axis:

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/23744547@N02/4862064933/

    And on offense what do you need to be successful? You need to be able to make shots (from the field or free throw line), avoid turnovers, and clean up the offensive glass–at the very least to the point where you aren’t handing over points by doing the opposite. This means that you need someone who can take care of the ball, someone who can put it in the basket, someone who can get the ball to that guy, and someone who can get the ball back when someone misses. We’ll call these four characters the Handler, the Scorer, the Creator, and the Rebounder.

    Quick point. The Creator and the Handler have to be the same guy. Because you can’t have your Creator losing the ball all the time before he can feed your Scorers, and you can’t have your Handler with the ball all the time but unable to get it to the Scorers.

    …It boils down to this: On defense, you have to be ready for whatever the offense throws at you. But on offense, you really just need to rebound and protect the ball enough to let your scorers go to work (or protect the ball just enough that your dominant rebounding can keep putting points on the board despite below-average scoring, etc.). Really, how you put points on the board is your business. The defense is just reacting.

    This is more than just a quaint idea.

    I’m sure Cannon’s model isn’t a perfect one, but it doesn’t have to be. It’s a start, and nothing more. Just as the traditional formula yielded point-forwards (or even point-centers…word up the the Antoine Walker experiment), combo guards, and other atypical cogs, I’m sure that this framework will allow for a few more offensive player designations yet. What matters is that we move away from a nondescript and misleading method of classifying players in favor of something — anything — that actually manages to advance basketball discourse.

    To those still clinging to what they know, I’d ask this: what’s a power forward? What characteristics link Dirk Nowitzki, Tim Duncan, Rashard Lewis, Lamar Odom, Reggie Evans, Tyrus Thomas, and J.J. Hickson? Not rebounding. Not scoring. Not skill set. Not height relative to their teammates. Not even the spaces they occupy on the floor. I’m at a total loss as to the criterion that would group that bunch together, which makes the assessment “Player X isn’t a real power forward” pretty much worthless. I think I know what it means, but without the ability to define the contemporary power forward, how could I really know for sure?

    Conceptually, this is nothing new. Players like Dirk have been bending positional bounds for years, and the basic tenets of fluid positionality have been preached by a number of NBA scribes. Yet this system makes enough intuitive sense to work, and gives the thought a more practical and literal application.

    If you’d like to join me on this little adventure, I’d love the company. If not, that’s fine, too. This post isn’t meant to convert, but primarily to do two things:

    1.Inform as to what the hell I’m talking about when I write that “Jason Kidd is a D2,” in the future.
    2.Bring the idea to the forefront. Even if you’re not ready to buy into an overhaul of positional classifications, I hope this at least gets you to think about what those classifications mean (or don’t mean).
    This could be fun, but I’m going to need a lot of help. Here are the initial offensive and defensive positions for all of the current Mavs according to my own assessment, but they’re not infallible. Are there offensive profiles that aren’t represented? Is it fair to list Shawn Marion strictly as a rebounder? Or Jason Terry as a D2? Let me have it. Rip this idea to pieces. Tear it down so we can build it back up with stronger and smarter ideas, making our collective analysis that much better in the process.

    Alexis Ajinca - D?, Large body
    J.J. Barea - D1, Scorer-Creator/Handler
    Rodrigue Beaubois - D1, Scorer
    Caron Butler - D3/D2, Scorer
    Tyson Chandler - D5, Rebounder
    Brendan Haywood - D5, Rebounder
    Dominique Jones - D2/D1, Scorer
    Jason Kidd - D2/D1, Creator/Handler
    Ian Mahinmi - D5/D4, Rebounder
    Shawn Marion - D3/D2/D4, Rebounder
    Dirk Nowitzki - D4, Scorer-Rebounder
    DeShawn Stevenson - D2, Abe Lincoln tattoo
    Jason Terry - D2 (I guess?), Scorer
    Interesting article that I thought could give us some debate in this most entertaining off-season. Do we see things differently? Using this method of thought....what is our current roster?
    "man, PG has been really good."
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Positional Certainty

    Nice article. I agree with his general points, not so much with his attempt to diagram it.

    JJ Barea is a D0 as he doesn't defend anybody. Nelson should trade him just to make be sure Carlisle won't be overusing him.

    Kidd is no good defending 1s but still pretty good on 2s. A very important distinction when talking about these ball-handling guards is to separate guys like Barea and Beaubois - players who can make plays, create easy scoring attempts for their teammates and someone like Kidd, a guy who can facilitate the offense, create ball movement, allow his teammates to make plays for themselves, manage the pace of the game and the offense of his team (knowing when it's time to get some touches to the low post player, read the floor and make the first pass to the right/left wing and what not). I tend to call the first playmakers and the second ones floor generals or game managers. Kidd was obviously excellent at both.

    Marion is still pretty effective as an offensive player at the 4 but poor as a wing. Played very good wing defense last season though.

    I prefer Terry defending 1s than 2s. He's a liability defending bigger guards.

    -------

    I think Dallas has the personnel to be a top-5 defensive team this season hence a contender. If they fail to do that, is a coaching issue. Not of player personnel.

    I'd like to see this starting line-up for them:

    Kidd (PG offensively, off-guard defensively)
    Beaubois (OG offensively, PG defensively)
    Marion (All-NBA wing defense, great rebounding at the 3)
    Nowitzki
    Chandler

    Off the bench:
    Terry + Butler + Haywood
    Dominique Jones as the 9th man

    They'd have above average defenders at every position except PF. Strong defense the point of attack + an excellent and a very good wing defender + an excellent interior defender. Three above average rebounders (Chandler, Marion, Kidd) and two solid ones (Dirk, Beaubois). Beabouis explosiveness would make a great compliment to Nowitzki - a more dynamic offense that would prevent those scoring droughts and the over-reliance on the Dirk post-up/shoulder ISO -> shot/pass to spot-up shot routine. Kidd could protect the frenchman from his lack of game-management skills. It should be a very dynamic offense. Butler would be the 6th man, able to fill the role of go-to scorer for a large part of his minutes. In a second unit they could pair Marion at the 4 with Haywood at the 5 and create a running line-up with Terry+Jones (a kid who's still raw but can defend and drive inside the lane).

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Positional Certainty

      Great stuff!

      Perhaps the taxonomy can be tweaked for the Pacers. But the basic contention is correct and very much worth talking about.


      Thanks for posting it. I hope this is the beginning of a long conversation.
      And I won't be here to see the day
      It all dries up and blows away
      I'd hang around just to see
      But they never had much use for me
      In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Positional Certainty

        I don't like how he lists defensive ability from D1-D5. It only shows what position a player is most capable of defending, and not the actual ability level that they defend at. Some players, for example Troy Murphy or Jose Calderon, might be better off defending "D4 or D1" but that doesn't mean that they don't just completely suck at it.

        Also, I don't agree that Creator must be tied to Ballhandler. Maybe in a perfect situation. Also, I'll use my interpretation of the Creator/Playmaker difference in what Cordobes mentioned. Scorer/Shooter needs differentiated as well.

        With that said, I see our current roster, as well as Watson because he played a big role on the team last year (I'll attempt to place the rookies, but its speculative at this point) measuring up like this:

        Roy Hibbert D5, Post
        Danny Granger D3, D4, Scorer, Shooter
        TJ Ford D1, Scorer
        Jeff Foster D4, D5, Rebounder
        AJ Price D1, Shooter, Playmaker*
        Dahntay Jones, D1, D2, Scorer
        Josh McRoberts, D4, Ballhandler, Playmaker**
        Solomon Jones, D5, Smug looking chin hair
        Brandon Rush, D2, D3, Shooter
        Mike Dunleavy, D3, Playmaker
        Troy Murphy, D4, Shooter
        Paul George, D2 OR D4***, D3, Shooter
        Lance Stephenson, D2, Playmaker
        Magnum Rolle D4, Shot Blocker****
        Hansbrough D4, Scorer

        Watson D1, Game Manager

        *Ability to run the P&R, which I think is Price's best asset, is clearly in the Playmaking line of thought, not game managing.

        ** It's hard to rate Josh as a ballhandler and a playmaker, as he would likely be below average as compared to most "Point Guards" but being that it is a big part of his skill set as a D4, it has to be included.

        *** At this point we don't know whether George will be an Ariza style defender - strictly wings - or whether he'll be able to match up with the occasional D4.

        **** Rolle is similar to George, right now with his body type...its clearly D4 but he may prove the right combination of length and strength to be defending against some D5 types. Also, I feel shot blocker is an important distinction as the ability doesn't directly correlate to good post defense.
        Last edited by Ozwalt72; 08-06-2010, 07:58 PM. Reason: forgot to add my dear watson
        "man, PG has been really good."

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Positional Certainty

          Also, ranking D1-D5 is done particularly by an athletic standpoint. Maybe we can differentiate by defensive ability at the position by adding a decimal. For instance, Kendrick Perkins is a D5.9 and Troy Murphy is a D4.3, D5.2

          Something like that.

          Also, something I've been thinking about....

          Does the term Stretch 4 specifically mean that said player is a Wing that guards PFs? Or does it only involve offensive ability. And if so, why don't you just call these players wings?

          A scoring guard that defends PGs, a distributor that defends big wings, a shooter that defends bigmen....are those simply combo guards, point forwards, and stretch forwards/centers?
          "man, PG has been really good."

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Positional Certainty

            Originally posted by Ozwalt72
            Does the term Stretch 4 specifically mean that said player is a Wing that guards PFs?
            We can discuss these terms and decide what we want them to mean.

            But more generally, I think the answer is no. A stretch forward is a forward who plays away from the rim on offense. I believe the term stretch forward has been coined to describe a forward in the 4 position who plays like a forward in the 3 position. (And since the premise of this thread is that those numbers don't mean anything, we should say that a "stretch forward" is a forward who is taller than the other player playing forward on his team at the time -- and that he is taking away the team's opportunity to have a insider or a banger-type power forward on the floor at the same time. The term implies nothing about his defensive assignment or ability.
            Last edited by Putnam; 08-06-2010, 10:39 PM.
            And I won't be here to see the day
            It all dries up and blows away
            I'd hang around just to see
            But they never had much use for me
            In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Positional Certainty

              Originally posted by Putnam View Post
              I believe the term stretch forward has been coined to describe a forward in the 4 position who plays like a forward in the 3 position. The term implies nothing about his defensive assignment or ability.
              Well, what puts them in the 4 position? Is it simply size and athleticism?
              "man, PG has been really good."

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Positional Certainty

                Originally posted by Ozwalt72 View Post
                Also, I don't agree that Creator must be tied to Ballhandler.
                Can you give a few examples of a creator who's not also a ballhandler? I can't think of any.

                Plenty of handlers who don't create, though.
                This space for rent.

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: Positional Certainty

                  Originally posted by Ozwalt72 View Post
                  Well, what puts them in the 4 position? Is it simply size and athleticism?
                  Size. I think it is just this simple in common usage. A guy who is either a) 6' 9" to 6"11, and/or b) the second tallest player on the floor for his team is expected to do certain things and is expected to play like a forward. Some people expect him to play like a power forward. But some players who fit that description don't play like a power forward.
                  And I won't be here to see the day
                  It all dries up and blows away
                  I'd hang around just to see
                  But they never had much use for me
                  In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: Positional Certainty

                    Originally posted by Putnam View Post
                    Size. I think it is just this simple in common usage. A guy who is either a) 6' 9" to 6"11, and/or b) the second tallest player on the floor for his team is expected to do certain things and is expected to play like a forward. Some people expect him to play like a power forward. But some players who fit that description don't play like a power forward.
                    Okay. So in a way, position is dictated largely by your size but any combination of skill set and athleticism can change that. For example, Chuck Hayes is a 6'6" center/forward for the Rockets and Allen Iverson's been a 6'0" SG to a lot of people.

                    Is the NBA getting to a point that 5 general positions is not enough? For stat purposes the G/G/F/F/C format is fine, but player description? How much of a shooting guard is Dahntay Jones when he shoots under 20% from range? A "power" forward with no power in their game? A point guard that doesn't fulfill traditional position responsabilities is a?
                    "man, PG has been really good."

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: Positional Certainty

                      Originally posted by Ozwalt72 View Post
                      Is the NBA getting to a point that 5 general positions is not enough? For stat purposes the G/G/F/F/C format is fine, but player description? How much of a shooting guard is Dahntay Jones when he shoots under 20% from range? A "power" forward with no power in their game? A point guard that doesn't fulfill traditional position responsabilities is a?

                      I think you are right. Those five words just aren't descriptive enough.*

                      But it's not a matter of adopting two or three additional position titles. We need to be flexible enough to just think of them as basketball players, and then delve into their specific skills. the Dallas writer in the OP identifies four specific offensive skills: creator, scorer, handler, rebounder. Probably this should be supplemented: shooter, dribble scorer, pick-setter, player with court vision.

                      Once you've identified all the skills that your team needs to succeed, you start asking what combination of players puts all those skills on the floor at once. It doesn't matter whether those skills are combined in any particular way. It only matters that your team puts all the necessary skills on the floor together.

                      As you point out, Dahntay Jones isn't a shooting guard. He's a defensive specialist.

                      The problem with Troy Murphy, for example, is not that he's a stretch forward instead of a power forward. The problem is that when he's playing his ideal role as a shooter, the Pacers have nobody (or not enough combined ability) fighting for rebounds and not enough bulk in the middle.

                      The problem with TJ Ford is that when he's on the floor, there's no handler and no court vision. If Ford could play with a healthy Mike Dunleavy, Ford's weakness would matter less and he could contribute as both a ballhandler and as a dribble scorer.



                      * The same trend is taking shape in the labor market. We have over 750 occupational titles (from accountant to zookeeper) but the skills, abilities and knowledge necessary to contribute to an employer's success don't fit neatly into those categories in all cases. Employers are looking more and more to skill descriptors that quantify those discrete skills instead of trying to cram them sideways into a standardized job title.
                      And I won't be here to see the day
                      It all dries up and blows away
                      I'd hang around just to see
                      But they never had much use for me
                      In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

                      Comment

                      Previous template Next
                      Working...
                      X