Modern Era NBA Build a Franchise Draft Discussion - Let's Get'er Done - Page 495 - Sporting Events and Fantasy Sports

This is why 2 way players (Bowen/Battier/Bell/Posey/Prince etc) are soooooooooooooooooooooooooooo much more valueable than spot up shooters who can't play defense.

I'm really starting to wonder if over half of the people in this thread/forum actually watch basketball instead of looking at basketball referance.

Truth. A great spot-up shooter who does literally nothing else won't be more than neutral offensively unless the defense ****s up, so he has to be a a good defender to have a big impact on your team.

Quote

06-15-2008 , 12:55 AM

#12352

KLJ

20k hands/day

Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 5,701

Quote:

Originally Posted by flyingmoose

Because when a guy can't do anything but spot up shoot, all you have to do is leave a defender on him and he won't get his shot anymore. If a guy could shoot well enough from 3 to have a TS of .800 then the defense would just never leave him to help in other areas.

this is why super high TS players dont exist (also because its hard to shoot that well). in general, though, NBA coaches/players are generally bad estimators of +EV, so spot-up shooters often have a higher "efficiency" than creators. that is, they help off of knockdown shooters too often

Quote

06-15-2008 , 12:56 AM

#12353

Dudd

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 54,241

Then he wouldn't be a shooter who is capable of shooting .800 in the NBA. Since the two players who kicked off this discussion were Ben Gordon and Jerry Stackhouse, two guys with similar usage rates, I think it's clear that when we talk about efficient scoring, we're not talking about Bruce Bowen like he's some offensive stud.

Quote

06-15-2008 , 12:58 AM

#12354

EPiPeN11

banned

Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 18,605

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dudd

The whole point is Bruce Bowen >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ben Gordon or Jerry Stackhouse especially in this league (and probably just a few >>'s less in the real NBA)

I swear you people don't realize the difference between off the ball offense and on the ball offense (or even know what it is for that matter)

Quote

06-15-2008 , 01:01 AM

#12355

flyingmoose

veteran

Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 2,224

Well, Gordon's not just a spot-up shooter, though. Dude is significantly better than a wash offensively, while Bowen is the posterboy for that. Apples to oranges, IMO.

Although, I do agree that Bowen is the better player.

Quote

06-15-2008 , 01:01 AM

#12356

Franchise 60

deliciously angry

Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 42,744

Thats way to many >>>'s when u consider you lose productive years with him.

Quote

06-15-2008 , 01:01 AM

#12357

EPiPeN11

banned

Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 18,605

Quote:

Originally Posted by Franchise 60

Thats way to many >>>'s when u consider you lose productive years with him.

ok true I was just comparing their primes

Quote

06-15-2008 , 01:02 AM

#12358

EPiPeN11

banned

Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 18,605

Quote:

Originally Posted by flyingmoose

Go ahead and run your offense through Ben Gordon pls. Anytime Ben Gordon has the ball in his hands trying to create a shot, it's a win for the defense (and I like Ben Gordon too).

Quote

06-15-2008 , 01:03 AM

#12359

Franchise 60

deliciously angry

Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 42,744

Its all about fits. Bowen is a better fit with most teams since he is an insane defender. But if you have defense on the wings, bringing a guy like Gordon off the bench is pretty huge and a great asset.

Quote

06-15-2008 , 01:04 AM

#12360

Dudd

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 54,241

Well, Bruce Bowen is probably a bad example since he's considered the best wing defender in the NBA over the last 8 or 9 seasons, while Gordon isn't thought of that highly. The only reason he slipped in this draft was his late peak, otherwise he would have rightly gone much higher. The point is though that when you take two players with similar usage rates and similar other things (defense, rebounding, passing, etc), the guy with the higher efficiency is probably a better player, and just because he's not as good of a slasher doesn't automatically mean that his higher efficiency is somehow inferior.

Quote

06-15-2008 , 01:05 AM

#12361

EPiPeN11

banned

Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 18,605

Quote:

Originally Posted by Franchise 60

Give me Bowen anyday of the week assuming u drafted well and have 3-4 all-stars already who can score/create their own shots.

Quote

06-15-2008 , 01:07 AM

#12362

Dudd

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 54,241

Look, the point isn't Bowen, he was just the first name of a drafted player who came to mind whose sole offensive game is stand in the corner and wait for your defender to leave.

Quote

06-15-2008 , 01:07 AM

#12363

EPiPeN11

banned

Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 18,605

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dudd

Ok fine give me James Posey over Ben Gordon any day of the week (assuming u have players who can create their own shots).

Quote

06-15-2008 , 01:10 AM

#12364

flyingmoose

veteran

Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 2,224

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dudd

The point is though that when you take two players with similar usage rates and similar other things (defense, rebounding, passing, etc), the guy with the higher efficiency is probably a better player, and just because he's not as good of a slasher doesn't automatically mean that his higher efficiency is somehow inferior.

I don't think anybody's going to argue that when two players are equal in every way except TS%, that the player who shoots better is better overall. But that's true with anything isn't it? If we have two equal players but one gets 5 rebounds and the other gets 7, the guy with 7 is better, right?

I don't even know what we're arguing about anymore or who's side I'm on.

Quote

06-15-2008 , 01:11 AM

#12365

EPiPeN11

banned

Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 18,605

I honestly just think a lot of people in this draft don't realize we are playing with only one basketball just like in the real nba.

Quote

06-15-2008 , 01:15 AM

#12366

Dudd

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 54,241

Well, the original comparison was Stackhouse to BG, two guys who are primarily known for their scoring, and KLJ said that you couldn't compare the two because BG shoots more and Stackhouse is more of a slasher. I just don't see why a guy who can pull up from 3 point range is automatically less valuable than a guy whose primary game is working off the dribble. It's like the only thing that matters to some people is who you would rather have with the ball in his hands and the shot clock running down, regardless of what he does the other 20 seconds of the shot clock.

Quote

06-15-2008 , 01:18 AM

#12367

EPiPeN11

banned

Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 18,605

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dudd

Ok fair enough, none of those guys are more valueable than a very good/elite defender who can hit the 3 at 40+ percent though (especially in this league) which is the point i'm making.

Personally I would never want my offense running through Stackhouse or Gordon for that matter (especially in this league), so I would give the edge to Gordon since he is a much better off the ball offensive player than Stackhouse and both their defense is suspect.

Quote

06-15-2008 , 01:20 AM

#12368

flyingmoose

veteran

Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 2,224

Quote:

Originally Posted by EPiPeN11

I honestly just think a lot of people in this draft don't realize we are playing with only one basketball just like in the real nba.

I think you think that people are saying things they're not. I doubt anybody in this thread would say that Gordon > Bowen under any circumstances.

Well, I guess Gordon would be better on a team of dikembe, Rodman, Posey and Raja, so I shouldn't say "Any circumstances", but I digress -- we all agree that Bowen is better so we can stop quoting each other and saying obvious stuff now.

Quote

06-15-2008 , 01:21 AM

#12369

EPiPeN11

banned

Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 18,605

Quote:

Originally Posted by flyingmoose

Ok fair enough, I just got home and skimed through this thread so I didn't read everything carefully.

Quote

06-15-2008 , 01:42 AM

#12370

Jack of Arcades

Jumbo Jack

Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 23,569

OK, just read next time before you hi-jack the thread.

Quote

06-15-2008 , 01:47 AM

#12371

Jack of Arcades

Jumbo Jack

Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 23,569

Quote:

Originally Posted by EPiPeN11

I honestly just think a lot of people in this draft don't realize we are playing with only one basketball just like in the real nba.

List examples of people who fit this description. Also, list bad picks who you felt were made only on the basis of TS% and TS% alone and why these were bad picks.

Because it's getting really annoying when you're throwing this thing out there - and you're not the only one - who's trying to pretend like so many people are worshiping at the altar of TS%.

Quote

06-15-2008 , 01:58 AM

#12372

kidcolin

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 109,033

epip,

I have absolutely no clue what you're arguing or if it even makes any sense.

Quote

06-15-2008 , 01:58 AM

#12373

lapoker17

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 8,960

umm i might say that gordon>bowen.

Quote

06-15-2008 , 02:03 AM

#12374

kidcolin

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 109,033

yeah, I might too. Not sure why Bowen is all of the sudden some beastly force

Quote

06-15-2008 , 02:10 AM

#12375

Franchise 60

deliciously angry

Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 42,744

Quote:

Originally Posted by lapoker17

umm i might say that gordon>bowen.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kidcolin

yeah, I might too. Not sure why Bowen is all of the sudden some beastly force

Pretty much feel the same way.

Quote

Page 495 of 633

First

295 395 445 475 485 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 505 515 545 595

Last

Post Reply Subscribe

...

Page 495 of 633

First

295 395 445 475 485 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 505 515 545 595

Last