calitennis127
Multiple Major Winner
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2013
- Messages
- 4,947
- Reactions
- 459
- Points
- 83
Broken_Shoelace said:calitennis127 said:Why couldn't they have just started all three? No one ever seems to answer that question.
For the same reason they don't start Reggie Jackson (not that he's the player Harden is). Scott Brooks loves his starting shooting guard to be able to guard people. That's why he was playing Sefolosha, and now starts with Andre Roberson.
Well Sefolosha was never anything special at guarding people, and he was at best neutral on offense. This was no excuse for not starting Harden.
Broken_Shoelace said:Thunder's style of play is built upon strong defense. Harden would have continued to play plenty of minutes, especially when it matters, so him being a starter or not is almost irrelevant, but again, Thunder's offense in the half court is atrocious and they have to work so hard to score, especially in late game situations when the defense tightens and the game slows down.
No one ever leveled this criticism on them when Harden was there; in fact, they were complimented for their late-game execution most of the time.
What you are espousing here is the conventional role-centered philosophy that has damaged the NBA game so much. This philosophy goes something like this:
X is our franchise player
Y is our second star
Z is our shooter
A is our post banger
B is our shotblocker
C is our heady veteran presence
D is our perimeter defender
E is our Sixth Man
F is our back-up point guard
And, voila, we have a true TEAM!
This philosophy misunderstands basketball on a basic level, and I must say that the Spurs have exposed its failings, albeit in a fashion that I find repugnant. It is better to have a team of 5 relatively equal and active parts than a team that puts all the weight on one or two players to be Superman.
The reality is that the more individual skill and individual talent you have on your team, the more of a threat to score you are, and therefore the more pressure you put on opposing defenses. That's why Harden was a better choice than Ibaka.
Broken_Shoelace said:Now I guess with Harden, they'd have one more option to go to, but in an already ISO heavy offense with no ball movement, you're only making it worse.
Again, this is the conventional wisdom of many analysts and GM's, but I entirely disagree. "Isolation ball" is often denigrated, but for the wrong reason. The problem isn't isolation ball per se; it's more so the pace of it and how well-prepared the surrounding players are to feed off of it. Putting the ball in the hands of someone who is a threat to drive to the basket or pull-up from deep is NEVER a bad thing in principle.
If you have 4 players standing around watching a tired Carmelo Anthony launch up shots every possession in the fourth quarters of tight games (i.e. the 2013-2014 New York Knicks), then yes, isolation ball is bad. But if you have three guys going out to make aggressive scoring plays decisively (like the Thunder did in their 2012 run to the Finals), then iso ball is actually a great thing. You can use it for setting up wide-open shooters and getting post players easy finish opportunities, not to mention getting to the line and getting the opposition in foul trouble.
Broken_Shoelace said:It's not that Westbrook or Durant have a problem deferring (at least not anymore in Westbrook's case, even though he can still be erratic), it's that it's literally "your turn, my turn, whoever is hot's turn" as opposed to proper offense.
Was it "improper offense" when they beat the holy San Antonio Spurs in the 2012 Western Conference Finals, with three of their four victories being blowouts by near or over 20 points?