Having your starting PF score 55% of his points from behind the arc is a bad thing. Having your starting PF shooting .7 FTA per game is a bad thing. Shooting threes is not inherently a bad thing. But when you are paying that guy $36 million over 4 years and he is your starting PF, it is a bad thing.
It's not so much an Anderson sucks, or I don't like him thing, it's a I don't like his contract, and I wouldn't want him to be a starter on my team thing. At this point in his career, he's a good sixth man I think, but I also think you can get pretty good 6th men for less than 9 million per. The same was true for Murphy when he was putting up his best years. He could have been a good 6th man, but his contract was garbage and he was trying to be an every day starter. That is what I mean by not a recipe for winning basketball or a winning basketball team. If Anderson's deal was 4 years, 24 million, and he was a bench guy, I think he'd be a great value.
Also, remember I started this by calling him Troy Murphy 2.0, not Troy Murphy Lite. The guy is a little better than Murphy, but they serve similar needs on a team, and they both have the same issues, Anderson's may not be as glaring, but his contract is. The nice thing for the Hornets though, and why they may have been a good team to give him this deal, is that it runs out same time as Davis comes up for extension.
Last edited by Trader Joe; 11-27-2012 at 12:10 PM.
I think people forget just how productive Murphy actually was.
First time in a long time, I've been happy with the team that was constructed, and now they struggle. I blame the coach.
Roy is still a very good interior defender, and Danny has a good mid range, and post up game. He also gets to the FT line, so he can score in other ways. West can score in other ways as well, although he is close to the same boat defensively and at times on the boards as Anderson is.
My point is, you have to be able to do something OTHER THAN hit 3's for 36 Mil.
Why the sigh? Lol there's never been a way we--or any other team would have been able to acquire him. If there were, he'd be playing elsewhere by now.
Would he look great in a Pacers uni? HELL YEAH. But he'd look great on ANY team.
Why? He's very efficient.
If he keeps up his current play, he's underpaid.
Murphy and Anderson are similar in the sense that neither was a quick athletic guy and both shot 3s. But they are very different players. Murphy was a horrible defender who didn't hustle and specialized in collecting all the defensive boards. Anderson is a hustle player, tough, much better offensive rebounder and an average defender (not crappy by any means).
WARNING THIS IS A RANT!!!
For 3 years I wanted JJ Hickson, and last year the Kings let him go. I wanted Bird to get him. Mike Wells stated the Pacers weren't interested in him. What a boneheaded blunder on Bird's part. Bird stated when he came to the FO he didn't know the players. Bird never made a truer statement while in the Pacers FO.
After the Kings let JJ go last season, Portland picked him up for peanuts. He played 19 games for Portland averaging 15/8. This season JJ is averaging a double double of 11/10.5 He can play both the 5 & 4. He's better than anything the Pacers have had in years as a b/u. It just grinds on me everytime I see his game production and Bird wasn't even interested in him. Grrr! Another blunder by the Pacers FO. There would never have been a reason for Walsh to have traded for Mahinmi if Bird had gotten Hickson. The Pacers would be money head by not having to have traded for Mahinmi, re-sign Tyler, or re-sign DWest to a expensive new contract. Money that could be used for the scorer the Pacers truly need.
END OF RANT
How about a Ryan "I AM hitting my 3s, I hustle, I'm 24 years old, I'm healthy, I fit into your team very well and I make 8 mil" Anderson
Pau "I'm getting old, I have tendinitis in both knees, I don't make much sense in the current system and I'm horribly misused by the Lakers for the 2nd straight season, and I make 19-20 mil a year, which will actually be 90 mil+ next year including taxes" Gasol?
Don't let JJ's numbers fool you. He's pretty bad, imo. Even with those numbers Portland barely picked him back up.
yeah well, it's not true.
And even speaking of this theoretical player who doesn't do anything besides hitting 3s (which isn't Anderson), he still spacing the floor even on a bad night. Which is huge on a team that uses a heavily spacing based system (like D'Antoni's or really half the league's today), or has a great low post scorer (whether it's a dominant big, or elite penetrating/cutting guards), or has great PnR duos.
Last edited by hackashaq; 11-27-2012 at 01:14 PM.
Offensively, sure, but he's a bad defender. Hustle is nice and all, but he is a minus defender at the 4 position. Offensively, he fits well with the Lakers, but defensively, not so much.
I don't hate Anderson, I just want a PF that's an above average defender/rebounder and can get me some easy points on the inside. If Anderson was good defensively, He's get more praise I'm sure.
One thing I've learned watching Portland is their starters never leave the game, so they will generally accumulate good numbers, because they're the only ones playing.
They won't win many games that way, though.
It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.
Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004
But he's not a bad defender. He's ok.
And he is a strong rebounder - especially on the offensive glass. Gasol is at 9.1 boards per 36, Anderson is at 8.6. Advanced / pace adjusted stats are basically identical. Not to mention, Anderson right now is having his worst offensive rebounding season --- still better than Gasol, but it's likely to get even better. So I don't really see that point.
Also, he does score some easy points inside -- just a normal part of being a hustle player / offensive rebounder. What he's not is a go-to low post talent like Gasol - which the Lakers doesn't need right now.
That's besides age, health and contract. The Hornets will never offer him for Gasol, but if they did, I think the Lakers would grab it and run. It solves most of their tax issues, makes them a sensible D'Antoni team and upgrades their health and energy. Then just replace Ron Ron with an elite two-way athlete/shooter like Batum, and you have D'Antoni's wet dream of a team with great defense to top it off.
I think he's bad. Bad to me is when you can't guard someone one on one without receiving help. He's not able to do that against good offensive PF's. And his rebounding is average. You look at advanced stats, I look at regular numbers. They're all the same in the end--his per 36 REB PG numbers are below 9 a game. THAT'S AVERAGE FOR A PF and is certainly not capable of getting double figure rebounding numbers consistently.
We just agree to disagree. You'd prefer a stretch 4 who can knock down three's, hustle, and grab a few offensive boards. I prefer an athletic PF who can help defend and rebound offensively and defensively while also being able to score on the inside.
Would that team you described be pretty good for D'Antoni's system? Hell yes. Would they win a championship? idk, he's never won one before utilizing this system in PHO.
Also: It's hard to have a great defensive team when your starting PG is as poor of a defender as Nash.
I've always thought very little of Hickson.
He's a decent rotation player and offensive guy off the bench, but I definitely would not throw big bucks at him to be my starter or main big man.