The Outside World – 11/12/10

Posted on Friday, November 12th, 2010 and is filed under NBA. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

The Outside World

By Ian Levy

The Outside World is a weekly recap of the best basketball writing and analysis the internet has to offer.

- The Pacers made 20 of 21 from the field during the 3rd Quarter of Tuesday’s game against Denver. Anyone want to watch all 20 made baskets back to back?

- Here’s a photo break down of Toronto’s defensive “system.” If you have stomach problems or are prone to fits of naseau, you might want to skip this one.

- Hardwood Paroxysm’s Zach Harper comes through with 1,000 words on the NBA’s best point guard. I’ll give you a hint, it isn’t D.J. Augustin.

- Proof for all you advanced stat heads that there is no place for math in pro basketball.

- There was a lot of discussion this summer on several blogs about the relative usefullness of the current system of designating positions in the NBA. Andrea Bargnani and Erick Dampier are both listed as Centers. They literally do they exact opposite things on the court. What’s the point of calling them both Centers if the only similarity is height? CanisHoopus has an interesting breakdown of the merging in many people’s minds of the shooting guard and small forward position, and how it may be hurting the Timberwolves this season. My questions is, The positions should be providing slightly different skills, but does it matter where they come from? What’s the problem with having a bruising rebounder/defender playing shooting guard, and a shooter/slasher at small forward?

- If you were wondering what happened to disgraced NBA referee Tim Donaghy, he apparently showed up at a game in Finland to make an atrocious offensive foul call wiping away one of the most impressive dunks you’ll ever see. He’s like the Keyser Soze of referees. And like that . . . poof . . . he’s gone.

- You know those crazy scenarios where one team has the ball with less than a second left, looking for a crazy lob play? Apparently there is a pretty comprehensive way to defend against it, besides of course just staying close to your man.

- The Hardwood Paroxysm crew presents their first podcast edition of the year. The first edition is titled “Be More Like Ricky Davis.” If that doesn’t pique your interest, then I don’t know what will.

- This is an absolutely terrific post from PistonPowered, comparing Rodney Stuckey to John Wall, Derrick Rose and Russell Westbrook. Before you start shouting, take a minute to read through it. The comparison is not in terms of production or potential, but in style and physical attributes. The argument is that the connection between Stuckey and those other players is what has kept the Pistons so committed to him despite his on court struggles.

You can also find Ian at Hickory-High.com and Indycornrows.com

http://www.pickinsplinters.com Casey

Ian – champion effort pulling all of this together. Helmet sticker!
http://www.pickinsplinters.com Casey

I am just as guilty as anyone of letting C. Paul slip form my radar.
http://www.pickinsplinters.com Casey

I agree with so much of what Canis is saying, but here’s the rub. Chris Mullin? Shooting guard? Or small forward?
http://hickory-high.com ilevy

Casey, what you said about the Canis post is exactly what I was trying to get across. You obviously want specific traits from each of those positions, but who cares which position they come from as long as they aren’t duplicated. Chris Mullin seems to have the skill set we would traditionally associate with a shooting guard, but that’s irrelevant. The only important thing is that you don’t want him on the floor at the same time as Detlef Schrempf. You pair him with someone who has a complimentary skill set, and the position you label that player is irrelevant. Chris Mullin would work really well with a Doug Christie. (You need a time machine for this analogy). Who cares which one is called the small forward and which one is called the shooting guard, they just fill their roles on offense and defend the best matchup on defense.

I think CanisHoopus is arguing that the labels are getting mixed up in a bad way. I am arguing that the important thing is the skills the labels represent. At this point those skills come in many different packages making the labels useless. We should be focusing on the skills of a player and his role on the floor not what we call him. It would seem to me that the problem with the Wesley Johnson and the Wolves is not that they are playing him at shooting guard, but that they are playing him in lineups where he is asked to do things that are not his ideal strengths. Regardless of what they call him, if they surround him with lineups where he can do what he does well and forget about the rest he will be successful.
http://www.pickinsplinters.com/?cat=425 Rey

Ian – I’m a high school basketball coach and my kids obsess over these labels. They constantly hound me about whether they are playing the 1,2, or 3. Your comment made me laugh because I can’t communicate to them that it doesn’t matter. But then again, a lot of times kids need some type of definitive answer to somehow validate their position or whatever on the court.

Oh – and the breakdown of the Rapters defense proves why coaching is still relevant in the NBA. I hate that people think players run the teams sometimes. It becomes obvious when a coach has not established a defensive or offensive scheme or attempted to reinforce some of the fundamentals.

The Outside World – 11/12/10

Twitter

Recent Posts

on the Pine

Pickin's Picks