DFDepressed FanDepressed Fan

All  

Sixers

, all the time

Quite A Luxury

What happens when Hot Jodie turns into Cold Jodie?

The same thing that should happen to cold lou

SIT

Yep. I'm actually kind of hopeful that Collins will do just that. He's had Lou's minutes on a yo-yo recently, depending on his play when he's on the floor.

PRoblem though

Lou is cold
Jodie is cold
Evan is Evan

Who do you play?

Evan, in that situation. He's not going to cost you possessions on offense, and he's the best defender of the bunch. You just better hope someone else is hot enough to do the scoring for you.

user-pic
Turtle Bay reply to Brian on Dec 8 at 21:59
+/-

Are we sure he is a better defender than Meeks? I've read a lot of nebulous comments about Turner's "good" defense or "bad" defense, and the same goes for Jodie. Has anyone (or would anyone) taken a look with synergy at how they've actually performed on defense?

Really not worried about Jodie's other statistics.

In terms of assists, he shouldn't be handling the ball that much anyway with Jrue and Iguodala on the floor. If a swing or kick-out pass comes his way, he should probably shoot it! And in the area of rebounds, shouldn't he be taking off as soon as the other team shoots? If Jrue or Iguodala are pushing the break, I want to see Jodie in position to hit the transition three.

Question for you guys: Are all 'shooters' hot or cold types? I guess I'm trying to differentiate between a volume shooter and a specialist. Sure, Jodie's current rate is unsustainable, but isn't an open 3 pt attempt by Jodie always ideal?

And in the area of rebounds, shouldn't he be taking off as soon as the other team shoots?

If the sixers start rebounding worse (overall) defensively than no he shouldn't be - cause you can't get a basket if you don't have the ball.

I think shooters typically get open threes on the break when they trail the play, not when they run out ahead.

user-pic
raro reply to Brian on Dec 8 at 15:01
+/-

I guess I was thinking about a recent Collins comment about Turner. The gist of it was that the ball handler moves to the the secured rebound instead of running down the court. Jodie should be taking off as soon as the rebound is secured, which in my thinking might lead to fewer defensive rebounds? There could be some faulty logic at work here :)

An open three-point attempt for anyone who shoots better than say 35% from deep is always a good shot.

As for hot and cold, there are shooters who that doesn't really apply to. A guy like Ray Allen is always a threat, and always needs to be accounted for. His usefulness isn't tied only to how well he's shooting from distance, either, though.

Meeks just seems like a streaky shooter to me, those are the hot/cold guys imo.

What happens when Hot Jodie turns into Cold Jodie?

It depends. If Jodie shows himself to be a reliable, consistent threat from the perimeter, he'll always open things up. Kyle Korver can go 0-4 from three point range, defenses aren't going to sag off of him. He's obviously not going to generate the kind of attention as when he hits his first few shots, but he's still going to open things up. One play was a perfect example of what that does to an offense, the give and go with Jrue -> Jodie -> Jrue for an easy layup, created because of the attention Jodie's shooting gets.

The key, to me, will be:
1) Whether he mistakes
2) Whether he can hold his own offensively.

I'm not looking for Jodie to collect a lot of assists, in fact, I don't want him to even try all that much. I'd much rather have Andre, Jrue, or Evan trying to do that. I'd like some rebounds, sure, but again, we have the all-around players to compensate for that.

If Jodie can turn himself into a 40% 3pt shooter, who plays solid (not spectacular) defense and doesn't make mistakes, I think we can live with a little bit of streakiness in his shot. Obviously, his minutes will drop on games he doesn't have it, but I don't think he's a net-negative on offense if he misses one or two.

What I don't want to see is what we started to see in the third quarter last night, where he started to try to do to much and threw a couple of passes away.

What I don't want to see is what we started to see in the third quarter last night, where he started to try to do to much and threw a couple of passes away.

Agreed. I don't particularly like him making plays off the dribble. He's had some ugly drives to the hoop the past couple games.

So, Jodie meeks and Kyle Korver, same player?

In that respect, yeah. You don't want them to be more than a finisher on offense. I doubt Meeks will wind up being the shooter Korver is, though. Meeks will probably be viewed as a better defender, whether he is or not, and Korver will always have a quicker release, imo. Though Meeks release has been impressive recently.

Just the comment about off the dribble, I remember Korver was god awful off the dribble early in his career but he worked on it and got slightly better (though korver always seemed to grab rebounds tooa nd give good effort on defense, he just lacked the athleticism)

Chicago is really desperate for a starting 2 guard this year - if Meeks can convince people he is one - maybe he increases his trade value :)

God, Bogans has just been horrible. Korver's gotten the most minutes in that rotation, I don't know why they wouldn't just bit the bullet and start him. His defense probably won't hurt as much as Bogans' offense does. Brewer is a bad fit there, imo. Rose and Deng don't shoot well enough to have a SG who can't shoot between them.

Wow, I just looked at Chicago's stats. Had no idea Deng was taking so many threes this year. He's at 38% shooting 3.8/game. Rose is taking 4/game and he's league average. Shocked by those numbers.

Deng is taking 7.6 shots/game from 16+ feet. As opposed to Igudoala, who's taking 6.4.

Deng, when healthy, is a better player than Iguodala. People forget it and just look at Dengs numbers ignoring all his injuries.

Sixers fans (on the other hand) don't appreciate the 'health' of a guy like Iguodala (or dalembert) and some probably still want brandon roy :)

Depends on team needs. They're very close in many advanced stats categories. Iguodala holds slight edges in PER (17.0 to 16.3 for career), WS/48 (0.122 to 0.117), while being more efficient (55.7% ts% to 52.7), and using less possessions (19.9% usage rating to 21.8%). Obviously, iguodala has a decided edge in ast% (19.8% to 11%), while turning the ball over more (14.8% to 10.4%, with Deng being the marginally better defensive rebounder (15.5% to 14.7%).

Throughout his career, Deng hasn't gotten to the line all that much, a problem that's hampered his overall efficiency (and is representative of the problems of midrange jump shooters), while not creating a lot for his teammates. He's most definitely a better pure offensive player, and probably similar of a defender (though I'd give the slight edge to Iguodala), but I don't think it's clear he's a better player, in fact i'd probably dispute that statement.

Deng, when healthy, is a better player than Iguodala.

Disagree with that. Deng had one season at or above Iguodala's level in terms of win shares. He hasn't approached Iguodala before or since, statistically.

on the floor, it's not even close imo. Deng is a slightly better rebounder and jump shooter, Iguodala is superior in every other area of the game, by a large margin.

I think Meeks is a better finisher in traffic. Not good, but I think he can, and can draw contact at times, at least better than Korver. Neither should really be trying to create offense off the dribble, either for themselves or others.

Scoring is the trump card of the NBA skillset.

The more ability you have to score the ball, the more they will forgive shortcomings in other areas.

Yeah, and that's the problem a lot of teams run into. That's how Charlie Villaneuva and Ben Gordon get big contracts. The Sixers have a roster that can hide a player whose primary skill is scoring, but there are a lot of teams that can't. Unfortunately, the Sixers don't even really have a scorer to hide.

user-pic
CM reply to Brian on Dec 8 at 16:32
+/-

IMO, Villanueva was the mistake - He hadn't shown to be as dynamic of a scorer as Gordon. Dumars spent the money just because he had it.

The more ability you have to score the ball, the more they will forgive shortcomings in other areas.

Which is one of the primary problems and why a guy like Carmelo is seen as 'mcuh more valuable' than Andre Iguodala. He's going to make 60% more per year than Andre Iguodala - is he that much more valuable than Iguodala? To old school 'points per game' people - sure he is - is he going to make the knicks more of a serious title contender - I don't think so

Not sure what you're getting at here. Adding Melo to the current Knicks roster would absolutely bring them closer to being a legit contender. Are you saying adding Melo wouldn't move them closer than if they added Iguodala?

user-pic
Tray reply to Brian on Dec 8 at 15:24
+/-

I think he thinks Melo wouldn't get them closer. It's of course true that the current Knicks team + Melo could not win a title. Probably couldn't make a conference finals either. But yeah, they'd have to be closer.

Yeah, I mean he's not the savior, but he's a good player. Adding either Melo or Iguodala would move them closer. Probably Iguodala would provide a more drastic improvement, because they already have their offensive focal point in Amare and Igoudala would do more for the team overall, especially on the defensive end. You can definitely make that argument.

Neither one of them is going to make the Knicks elite, though, imo.

Maybe I stated it wrong (I don't think Mike D'antoni's system can win a title at all actually) but I think Melo just brings more points and little else. I don't think he's the kind of piece the knicks need in a star to be a serious contender in the east.

I mean, yes he'll get them a higher seed int he playoffs - but I don't think it makes the knicks more likely to beat the celtics, magic, heat, or even the bulls

user-pic
Tray reply to GoSixers on Dec 8 at 17:17
+/-

Because their chance would still be about zero, but if they added Melo and something else substantial, maybe now you'd be talking about a title contender. So in a sense he gets them closer.

If they added Iguodala and someone substantial their chances would be better as well.

I don't think Carmelo is worth 7 million (or so) more a year than Iguodal just because of point differential

user-pic
Tray reply to GoSixers on Dec 8 at 17:55
+/-

Yeah, that's true.

Which was the point I was truly trying to make in all this Carmelo is going to get 25 mil a year nonsense :)

Which was the point I was truly trying to make in all this Carmelo is going to get 25 mil a year nonsense :)

user-pic
CM reply to GoSixers on Dec 8 at 16:36
+/-

The difference between Anthony and Iguodala as scorers is greater than the PPG difference.

Carmello's box office appeal adds to his value - making him EASILY more valuable ($$$) than Iguodala.

In terms of ownership making money, you're right. But when you're talking about winning games, and winning a championship in the league, all the teams are operating under the same salary cap. So if you're getting the same production from a guy who's making 50% more money, you're hurting your team's overall chances.

Carmello's box office appeal adds to his value - making him EASILY more valuable ($$$) than Iguodala.

Bull

Fans show up when teams win except maybe in LA (though I bet if the lakers were 500 they woudlnt' sell out either)

If the Knicks were a better title contender with Iguodala than Carmelo (which I think they would be) - the fans would show up.

Maybe in the beginning they show up to see melo but if the knicks don't win they don't show up.

It's like last year when the sixers obviously signed Iverson for 'box office' - it lasted one damn game :)

Eh. The Knicks don't have a problem drawing fans anyway. Iverson at the tail end of his career isn't going to score 40. If he was in his prime and the team sucked, he'd keep the attendance at a respectable level, no matter how bad the team is. I should probably check out what the attendance was like in 04-05, around there to confirm. In NYC, it's not an issue.

Well whether it's an issue or not, knicks fans will show up for wins, regardles off if it's melo or iguodala that gets em going :)

I personally think places like New York and LA are less impressed with celebrity because it's much more common place (which is why i thought jeters agent had his head so far up his ass he was rohrsharch plot

user-pic
Tray reply to Brian on Dec 8 at 17:19
+/-

I thought more people would show up to see Iverson, but I guess after a few games people realized it was just a stunt.

"An open three-point attempt for anyone who shoots better than say 35% from deep is always a good shot."

This is basically true, although a team standing around and jacking 35% threes isn't as good an offense, obviously, as getting into the paint and trying to get to the line. But speaking of that, look at these odd comments about Thad Young, career 34.2% three-point shooter, from last night's AP recap:

ollins said Young is an effective player when he stays within himself, and that means staying within the 3-point line.

“I told him that 3-point line is like the electric fence that you put in your yard with a dog,” Collins said. “You get across and it shocks you, so stay in front of it.”

Though he made a 3-point shot on Tuesday, Young agreed that long-range shooting isn’t his forte.

“Hey, I’m not living and dying by 3s,” Young said. “I’m trying to get to the basket and doing whatever the coach wants me to do. I know my strengths and my weaknesses. My weakness is shooting 3s, and I’m not going to shoot a lot of them.”

_________

Now, why is it such a terrible thing for Thad to shoot threes? Iguodala and Lou are worse shooters over their careers, and both are only a tick better this year, but I don't think Doug is telling them to avoid the three-point line like an electric fence. And how can Thad, a perfectly okay shooter, be so snookered by Collins that he's telling reporters his weakness is shooting? I can think of much bigger weaknesses in his game.

The same thing occurred to me. If you forget about the other players for a second and just focus on Thad, this isn't bad advice, though. Keep him inside the three-point line and keep him going to the hole, where he's been brilliant this season. That keeps him aggressive throughout the game, and maybe infects the rest of his game?

I don't know, he should probably have the same message for Lou and Iguodala as well.

user-pic
Tray reply to Brian on Dec 8 at 15:40
+/-

In which case who's allowed to shoot on this team, just Meeks?

Got me. I'd rather they all shoot threes. Better than 20-footers.

One of the things I like about Young's shot selection, which I mentioned in my article linked below, is he's limited his jump shots to virtually only be when he's unguarded, which he converts at a much higher percentage. This year, 80.8% of his catch and shoot attempts have been when he's been unguarded, compared to 36.1% last year, which leads to higher percentage shots.

One thing with Thad, and one reason why I think Thad may be a more valuable mid-range shooter than most, at least more than the straight numbers on efg%/value would indicate: I don't think many view Thad as a threat to dribble from outside the three point line to the basket, so I don't think if defenders closed out hard on him, he'd make them pay all that much. If he's in the 17-20 foot range, makes a few shots, and defenders start closing out harder on him, he can make one strong move and get to the basket more effectively. It helps him more to have defenders respect his midrange shot than his three point shot, due to his ballhandling deficiencies.

http://www.libertyballers.com/2010/12/8/1863811/hawes-revival-keys-sixers-improved-play

http://www.libertyballers.com/2010/12/8/1863811/hawes-revival-keys-sixers-improved-play

One of the things I like about Young's shot selection, which I mentioned in my article linked below, is he's limited his jump shots to virtually only be when he's unguarded, which he converts at a much higher percentage. This year, 80.8% of his catch and shoot attempts have been when he's been unguarded, compared to 36.1% last year, which leads to higher percentage shots.

One thing with Thad, and one reason why I think Thad may be a more valuable mid-range shooter than most, at least more than the straight numbers on efg%/value would indicate: I don't think many view Thad as a threat to dribble from outside the three point line to the basket, so I don't think if defenders closed out hard on him, he'd make them pay all that much. If he's in the 17-20 foot range, makes a few shots, and defenders start closing out harder on him, he can make one strong move and get to the basket more effectively. It helps him more to have defenders respect his midrange shot than his three point shot, due to his ballhandling deficiencies.

http://www.libertyballers.com/2010/12/8/1863811/hawes-revival-keys-sixers-improved-play

So nice watching Thad play the way he's attacking the rim and getting his shots, the closer the better. As for Meeks, it's been fun to see him come in and hit a bunch of threes and provide a spark. He's definetely earning regular minutes. I'd still like to see more of the Holiday/Turner backcourt though. Two guards with good length, solid perimeter D, and can help crash the boards, that's a recipe for success going forward. And while it's important to have a guy who can be a threat from the outside, overall better defense and rebounding is what wins in this league more than anything.

user-pic
TruePhan on Dec 8 at 17:38
+/-

Jodie's not a streaky shooter. The best way to tell how good of a shooter somebody is is both the way they make a shot and the way they miss a shot. When Jodie makes a shot, it does not touch the rim. When he misses a shot, so far all it does is miss short or long, never to the side, and it just falls dead on the rim. That's an indicator that his shot is very good and that it's because of his delivery and fingertip control. Because of this, and the fact that Jodie has a consistent delivery that he repeats every single time he takes a shot, he's not going to be a streaky shooter.

The difference between Willie and Jodie is that Willie was not a shooter, and his shot was closer to Evan Turner's than anything, which makes sense because they're very similar players with very similar body builds(albeit a few inches apart). If Willie wasn't getting to the rim, he wasn't helping you. Also unlike Jodie, Willie's defensive problems stemmed from the fact that after he got injured, he developed a "compact" body build and thus did not have the wingspan to guard regular-sized two guards. To be honest, Willie should've been played as a point guard once he lost his athleticism due to that knee injury he suffered. He's much better suited for the point, and he would be at the very least an adequate defender there.

Getting back to Jodie though, Jodie isn't undersized for a two-guard. He's 6'4 in shoes and though his pre-draft wingspan wasn't much bigger than his height in shoes, neither was O.J. Mayo's. They're actually built exactly alike, except O.J.'s maybe a quarter to a half an inch taller than Jodie and thus has a one inch or so longer wingspan. Jodie's got the build of a pure-shooter and of a true shooting guard. Everything about him screams starting two. More importantly, what makes Jodie different is that he uses all of his wingspan when he's playing defense and he always gives effort. When you're 6'4 and have a 6'4+ wingspan, that's enough to make you a pretty good defender at the 2 if you use your size right. He's not big for a two guard by any means but he's just tall enough with a barely long enough wingspan that he's not small either.

I watched Jodie in college. He was the only player whose name I remembered from that Kentucky team. Before last year, nobody paid attention to Kentucky so it was unlikely for anybody to make a big deal out of a player like Jodie unless he was better than Jodie was back then. Jodie played like exactly what he was back then, a guy who wore the number 23 on his jersey. I think the way his career started out probably humbled him. He went from being the star of a Kentucky team that very few people probably remember(but still "the man" there nonetheless) to a guy who has to fight to stay on rosters after getting drafted in the 2nd round.

I was skeptical that he would be anything more than a typical second-rounder when we traded for him but his first games as a Sixer showed me a few things. They showed me that he doesn't have the ego commonly associated with a player who wears 23(probably due to being humbled), that he's not lazy and gives effort on D, and that he plays within a team and does whatever is asked of him. I also saw that he was more than a shooter when I went and personally watched the game against the Bulls last year, where Jodie scored in different ways, including some impressive drives to the hoop.

What really tells you the most about him is one play from last night. After getting embarassed when going to the rim for a layup and even falling down out of bounds, Jodie sprinted back full-tilt to get back on defense and because of this his man never had a chance to score, whereas if he hadn't done that or had been even a split-second later, his man would've gotten the ball and easily collapsed the D. That is what seperates "talented" players or players with "potential" from good players.

The great thing about developing a guy who is a shooter vs. a guy who can get to the rim but needs to work on his shot is that if a shooter is talented enough, he can easily expand his skillset to include more than just shooting. Jodie continues to do that. He's head and shoulders above the player he was in college right now.


Also, something people don't seem to get about stats a lot of times is the fact that it's about the opportunities more than anything. Elton Brand will not average 20 and 10 for the Sixers for a reason, the same way Iguodala won't average 20-25 even though he's more than capable of it. Elton was "the man" in LA. He was their superstar. He came here and he obviously was not the same player at first, and he wasn't going to get the opportunities he did in LA to be a 20 ppg scorer. He came to a team with guys like Miller, Iguodala, Dalembert, Lou, Thad, and a whole host of other people who were going to get more than a handful of shots a game. The Sixers had multiple guys with very few years in the league who they were still trying to develop, Lou Williams included. Brand was not going to take shots or rebounds away from them, especially not until he came back from his injury fully. Playing with Dalembert especially, Sammy had his hand on almost every rebound that came off the glass(TWO HANDS BIG MAN!) and if he didn't then he was in the way for somebody who could have. Add Speights, Smith, Iguodala, Theo, Willie, and Reggie in his first year and then Jrue and Carney the next year and Elton's not getting a whole lot of rebounding opportunities, especially when the Sixers didn't force a lot of outside shots. Now he's got Hawes, Battie, and Nocioni too. That's why Meeks doesn't average a bunch of assists or rebounds or anything else. There's three players on the starting lineup who handle the ball a lot: Jrue, Iguodala, and Elton. Meeks is the off-the-ball scorer the Sixers hope Evan Turner turns into, and he plays good enough defense to continue to start at the 2 and to be a starter at the 2 for years.

The reason this team is playing well is because it's starting to have structure and defined roles, something it never had before. The Sixers have a definite 6 players who could easily average 20 a night and one more who probably could with a few who maybe could. Unfortunately though, the only player who can't score efficiently is the one who gets the most opportunities to score, and that would obviously be Lou. He's at best unnecessary and at worst a HUGE liability at both ends of the floor. The only reason he scores at all is because he almost always has the ball in his hands when he's out there. Anybody in the starting lineup could score in bunches if they always had the ball in their hands.


I apologize for the length of this comment. I just wanted to share a few things. Hope some people enjoyed reading this and maybe got a bit out of it or took something from it.

Long post, some I agree with, much I don't. I'll just respond to one, since it's something oft-repeated.

"Meeks is the off-the-ball scorer the Sixers hope Evan Turner turns into, and he plays good enough defense to continue to start at the 2 and to be a starter at the 2 for years."

If the Sixers are hoping Turner turns into an off-the-ball scorer, they're using him wrong. It's one thing to ask him, now, to develop skills to play off the ball, as those skills will come in handy, and they're a necessity now that he's not the primary initiator. If that's what they're asking him to do in 3 years when he's become acclimated to his team and to the NBA, they're grossly misusing him.

user-pic
TruePhan reply to Derek Bodner on Dec 8 at 18:26
+/-

I'm not sure exactly how that's disagreeing with what I said. It seems more like you're saying that what the Sixers are doing with Turner right now is stupid if they want him to learn how to play off-the-ball, and I'm not sure exactly where I said it wasn't.

There are only two ways Turner is going to fit into this team. The first way is as the off-the-ball scorer they need to comppliment Iguodala and Jrue handling the ball the majority of the time.

The second is if they trade Iguodala and make Turner his replacement.

The NBA is a game of roles. Without players having established roles, you will not win.


If you could, would you mind pointing out what else you disagree with and why? If not here you could send me an email or something. I understand that it was a very long post.

I don't think the sixers hope Evan Turner turns into an off the ball scorer, and certainly not in the same manner Meeks is. I think they hope he asserts himself and shows himself capable of being the primary offensive initiator in the half-court, or at least equal with Jrue. I think they're developing him off the ball now to get him on the court and fit current team needs, and to expand his game.

Being used off the ball, Meeks and Turner work vastly different. Even if Turner plays "off the ball" for the coming years, it's not going to be camped outside the three point line for a catch and shoot or coming off a screen for a jump shot, but using cuts and screens to get a step on his man to get to the basket. Again, develop his catch and shoot game, but not use him in that way for his long term future.

I also think the "6 players who can score 20 or more points" is outrageous. Sure, I guess if you give a guy enough shots, and not worry about efficiency or how many possessions he uses, Williams (and possibly Thad) may be able to. Brand has in the past, but i'm not sure he can get enough shots up to average that amount anymore. Iguodala might be able to sneak into that range, but it's not in his nature. Turner might be able to in the future, but not now. Jrue can't now, and may be able to in the future, but I think doing so would be using him ineffectively. I don't think there's any chance Meeks is a 20 ppg scorer in this league.

I also disagree with your assessment on why Meeks doesn't get many rebounds or assists. He didn't in college (3.4/1.8 his senior year). He didn't in Milwaukee. He hasn't in 2 years here. Despite having sammy and brand here last year, the Sixers were a bad defensive rebounding team, grabbing only 73.2% of their defensive rebounds, good for 21st in the league. There were defensive rebounds to be had.

and I don't think Iguodala's capable of averaging "20-25 ppg easily". I don't think he's that good of a half-court offensive player, not when generating his own offense, at least. If he wasn't capable of doing it here, he won't anywhere else, when the Sixers have been devoid of having a great half-court offensive player. You can see an Iguodala article I did at this time last year showing the limitations of his half-court offensive game below.

I also disagree with a shooter being easily to develop his other skills. In fact, I don't think you can find all that many examples of pure shooters who developed into focal points offensively, or even into good slashers.

http://archive.phillyarena.com/archives/2010-01-03/Mythbusters-Iguodala-the-Slasher

user-pic
TruePhan reply to Derek Bodner on Dec 8 at 19:44
+/-

You've made more than one misconception about what I'm actually saying. I'd like to clear that up.

I said "Meeks is the off the ball scorer that the Sixers hope Evan Turner will turn into". That means that I'm not talking about how they use Meeks or what he does the most often. I'm talking about the fact that Meeks is used off-the-ball, and is used efficiently that way. Both of them should be getting cuts to the basket, especially Turner. Unfortunately, he's now the backup point guard.

This is not the West Coast. You will not win in the East if you have 3 guys handling the ball often, all on the perimeter. You need to have an inside-outside game or you need to have cutters, or preferably both. Iguodala has to play with the ball in his hands, and Jrue is your point guard so how is Evan supposed to initiate the offense?

There are very few pure shooters in the NBA who are not also very good players. I'm not talking about a guy like Korver or Kapono(who really aren't pure shooters). I'm talking about a guy like, for example, Micheal Redd. He's a pure shooter. Kobe, Ray Allen, O.J. Mayo, Kevin Durant, etc are all pure shooters. It's something that you only way you become one is by being able to understand how important fingertip control is, and that translates to every aspect of the game. So yes, it is much easier to develop a player who has the skillset of being a pure shooter than it is to develop somebody who is merely a slasher into somebody who can shoot.


Forgive me if I don't take something you write as a verifiable source to reference, especially when everything you need to know is right in front of your eyes with every single game if you know how to see it.

When you say "the off the ball scorer they hope Turner turns into", that's certainly phrased as being used in the same way.

I hate the term "off the ball", btw, for this very specific reason. It says nothing. It doesn't differentiate from Kyle Korver, to Richard Hamilton, to Andrew Bogut.

And Korver and Kapono are most definitely pure shooters, with "finger tip control". Look up the video Kapono shot on quick release. Just because they don't have the diversified offensive game of Kobe Bryant or Kevin Durant doesn't mean you can throw th em out as pure shooters. In fact, it makes my argument.

Second, Andre Iguodala does not dominate the ball in the half-court. He did in years past, but it is not Andre Iguodala's ball domination that is holding Turner back. I agree Turner doesn't have the ball enough, but I disagree the reason. Nor was I saying Turner should be playing entirely on the ball right now, so i'm not sure the purpose of bringing this up except as another excuse for you to try to "teach" us all the game.

I was citing my article to be used as a verifiable source, I was citing it to describe my views on Iguodala's half-court limitations without having to restate them. So rather than get yourself in a tizzy (and you're the one trying to come off as an authority here), calm down and read what I wrote what than "having more than one misconception" about what I said.

As for "everything you need to know is right in front of your eyes", I watch every Sixers game (as well as hundres of collegiate and euroleague games, not to mention obviously lots of NBA games) per year. I love the "I watch the game" crowd of argumentation.

user-pic
TruePhan reply to Derek Bodner on Dec 8 at 20:18
+/-

Whether you hate it or not, it simply means that you run screens or cuts for a player rather than him handling the ball. It's the only way that you play a guy who needs to be a focal point of the offense at the SG position when there's other guys who already run the offense, namely your franchise player.

They are most definitely not pure shooters. They rely on rhythm to shoot and shoot the ball with their whole hands more than they do their index and middle finger. A pure shooter uses fingertip control and thus can hit the shot from anywhere at any time. The difference between Meeks and Kapono or Meeks and Korver or really any pure shooter and those two players is pretty noticeable. So no, it doesn't make your argument, especially when Korver and Kapono are two unathletic white dudes who can do pretty much nothing but shoot the ball.

I'm not trying to "teach" you anything. I love how you keep throwing accusations my way instead of simply being able to speak back and forth to each other and converse in a civil manner. Also, Iguodala has to dominate the ball or else he doesn't fit into the team. He seems to have the ball in his hands quite a bit when Lou Williams isn't on the floor, and he seems to be initiating quite a bit of offense . I never said the ball needs to be in Evan's hands more. Not once did I say that. I infact said the opposite, that if Iguodala is here then Evan needs to be played off-the-ball.

I'm not trying to come off as anything. I'm sharing some things, the same way all of you are. If you'd like to refute the things I have said about shooting/shooters, and all of that other stuff, then go ahead. Hell, you and me can have a shooting contest or something and you can see just how little I know about shooting. We don't need to go there though because everything I have said, if it is true, would be agreed to and most likely said elsewhere by pure shooters or by coaches/shooting coaches. If it isn't, then that's not the case. Arguing back and forth isn't going to do anything either way though.

You may watch the games but you clearly don't see them. This isn't baseball. Everything you need to know is right there on the court.

Yeah, we're going to disagree, a lot, from the definition of playing off the ball (there's far more than screens and cuts), on pure shooters (not disputing "finger tip control", disputing that Korver and Kapono don't have it), on the relevance of being slow and white, to your evaluation of Iguodala and virtually every player on the roster, and to your need to make demeaning comments.

But, if it makes you feel better about yourself to do so on an internet message board, go for it.

user-pic
TruePhan reply to Derek Bodner on Dec 8 at 22:27
+/-

Since you seem to have missed my challenge the first, second, or third times around, here it is directly to you one last time:

You want to try to make me out to be some clueless idiot on the internet, when in reality that's exactly what you are? Okay, then we can have a shooting contest, we can play horse, one-on-one, and let our games do the talking. I'll even shoot with my eyes closed for a three point contest and maybe even off of one foot as well. You can tape it and put it up on your pathetic little site. Everybody can see how a dude with a bad foot outshot or outplayed you and your big mouth, and how much knowledge and understanding of the game I really have. I'll even give you a tutorial of what you don't know or understand afterwards.


Put up or shut up. You keep running your mouth but you flat out don't know basketball and have yet to prove that you do. All you've done is acted like a catty little teenaged girl, which isn't the least bit surprising given the sites you "write" for.

Oh, and GoSixers, don't ever talk about anybody else's intelligence.

There. That's it. You've seen my challenge. Put up or shut up, and either way I'm not saying a damn thing to you from now on, whether you're replying to a comment I make or not.

I stated on your post there was "some I agree with, much I don't". I listed one specifically, not because of you or your opinion, but because it's a common opinion I disagreed with.

You then asked for what else I disagreed with, even though it wasn't what I was looking ot debate. I listed the parts of your initial post I disagreed.

At no point during this did I attack either you or your intellect. I didn't say you didn't understand basketball or that you obviously weren't watching the games. I pointed out what I disagreed with and why.

Your next post you attacked me, and said I didnt' understand basketball. Even then, I did not take the bate. I said what I disagreed with, stated why I disagreed with, and defended that I did, in fact, watch a lot of basketball.

Your next reply you once again attacked me, saying I may watch basketball, but I don't comprehend it.

You're the one who insisted everything I disagreed with be debated. I wasn't looking for a fight, I was looking to point out my differing opinion on one subject. You're the one who instigated and insulted my intelligence, not me. You're the one who came here trying to teach others, not me.

I never said you were a clueless poster on the internet, I questioned your need to demean people on the internet. Very different statement.

If there's one thing that I can't stand, it's someone who puts down others who disagree with them. I have very little patience for that. I now understand your M.O. and will make sure to avoid any posts of yours in the future. I'm here to discuss my favorite basketball team, not try to prove my intellectual superiority or put down other posters. I have no interest in this game. And I don't give two ****'s about your challenge.

I did not take the bate

Just as long as you took a bath :)

Hah. I'm tired.

user-pic
TruePhan reply to Derek Bodner on Dec 9 at 0:59
+/-

That's hilarious right there. Actually, here's how it really happened.

I made a post. You started by saying there's some you agreed with and much you didn't.(That's why I asked you to point out what else you disagreed with and why) You then attributed something to me that I never said. When I pointed that out and then explained that I was speaking of a role, you twisted what I had said and made it look like I had said to play Turner exactly the way they're playing Meeks where he just catches and shoots. You committed the straw-man fallacy by trying to make what I was saying out to be something it wasn't and then picking apart the straw-man you made from the twisting instead of my actual argument. That's all you've done this entire time is try to act like I said things I didn't or like I don't know basketball just so that YOU can try to act like an authority and try to teach.

Unlike you, I guarantee you I have a hell of a lot than I can teach pretty much anybody about this game. The one area that I'm not up to speed in yet is learning complex plays, and that's it. I understand things about the game that you never will because you make it all about you and your damn ego.

That's why LibertyBallers and all of those other sites suck and are disgraces to sports is because it's all about drawing attention to yourselves and using it for your own image purposes. That's why you have your own little inside jokes and bash certain players. That's why you use internet lingo and try wayyy too hard(and fail every time).

You were the one who started demeaning, and that was after you came at me all snarky like you knew better than I did. YOU started this. I didn't say a damn thing about you until you started acting like a catty little girl and making fun of my username and the fact that I was emphasizing finger-tip control when it comes to SHOOTING A BASKETBALL. You want to try to punk me as if I'm some idiot on the internet then we can take this to the court and you can see first-hand just how much I know. I'll make you look like the over-opinionated little internet dbag that you are.

I'm not going back and forth with you. Put up or shut up. This is done.

I apologize to everybody who had to read this crap, and especially to the person who writes this blog.

You committed the straw-man fallacy by trying to make what I was saying out to be something it wasn't and then picking apart the straw-man you made from the twisting instead of my actual argument.

Or, rather than intentionally trying to twist what you said, maybe there was a misunderstanding. Nah, that couldn't be it. I was obviously trying to pick a fight.

And you went on the attack first, with your comments at 7:44 PM and 8:18 PM, both of which I've pasted below, and were well before my comment at 8:39 PM, which I admittedly was aggressive on. Let's not try to re-write history, chief. I was completely civil before you went off the handle.

Yet, to this point, I have not attacked your intellect or knowledge of basketball, only your ego. Which is ironic, since that's what you accuse me of.


December 8, 2010 7:44 PM

Forgive me if I don't take something you write as a verifiable source to reference, especially when everything you need to know is right in front of your eyes with every single game if you know how to see it.

December 8, 2010 8:18 PM

You may watch the games but you clearly don't see them. This isn't baseball. Everything you need to know is right there on the court.

Go ahead, continue demeaning me, you're just proving to everybody who's actually looking for a fight. Why don't you ask others around here of my posting style, whether I'm arrogant, and whether I go around trying to pick fights? I bet most would have a different opinion of you.

BTW, what are your thoughts on DraftExpress? Is it a disgrace to sports ?

user-pic
CM reply to TruePhan on Dec 8 at 18:28
+/-

""The Sixers have a definite 6 players who could easily average 20 a night and one more who probably could with a few who maybe could.""

6? I think that you greatly underestimate how difficult it is to score points in the NBA, while at the same time overestimate the talent on the Sixers roster.

user-pic
TruePhan reply to CM on Dec 8 at 19:12
+/-

I'm not underestimating or overestimating anything.

This Sixers roster is a lot more talented than it used to be, and it's also full of young players who are still developing. I'll list the 6 players and why they could average 20.

Elton Brand: He's done it before and the fact is that he's got a good enough shot and a good enough game to average 20 on 15 shots a game or so.

Iguodala: He averaged almost 20 on 15.6 shots per game in 07-08, a year that as I recall he took awhile to really start playing well. His FGA per game has dipped every year since 07-08 and yet he only went down 3 ppg in those 3 years, and we all know that last year was more of an all-around year than an offensive year for him. I think that anybody who thinks he can't average 20 a game with enough opportunities is downright crazy. He'll score a lot in one quarter or one half and then not at all or very little after or before that. That's because he plays within his team and since players like Lou Williams and Evan Turner are handling the ball instead of him, he's not going to score as much as he could unless he's set up well and doesn't have to force it.

Jrue: I think his game pretty much speaks for itself. He's still maturing and tweaking his game but he can score in bunches while still playing solid point. He just needs to find that balance.

Jodie Meeks: A pure shooter who can put points up in bunches. He could probably average 20 on 10 or less shots with his shooting ability.

Thad: Extremely efficient scorer who is still working to expand his offensive game. Don't forget that he was a lottery pick and a guy who more than just the Sixers thought had loads of potential. Being put at the 4 really regressed his development. He could probably average 20 a game on 12-15 shots playing the way he's playing right now.

Evan Turner: Did you see him in college? If he's not a 20ppg scorer, I don't know who is. He's shown flashes of it so far, and he's only going to get better. He's around Iguodala efficiency level I think, though as his shot improves that will get better.

I think a lot of people really overestimate the difficulty of averaging 20 a game or the value of a player who does. Averaging 20 a game efficiently is difficult if you're not an efficient scorer but this is a team full of efficient scorers and potential efficient scorers. It also doesn't make you a good player or even a good scorer, just like getting steals doesn't make you a good defender. For example, Brand seems to get steals pretty often. Would you want him guarding a guard? Thad got 11 boards last night. Do you think he's a guy who can consistently get boards in the post? It's all about how you get your stats and how it impacts your team.

If you get rid of Lou for a backup point guard, I guarantee you everybody else's stats go up almost instantly. There's too many shots going around for players to average 20 a game on this team, and same with rebounds, assists, etc. They do everything by commitee unless Lou is on the floor.

Project for ya: find me one 20 ppg scorer in the last 10 years who has averaged 20+ points on 10 shots. I'll wait.

Purely speculative but i'll bet no one has done it on less than 15 shots per game recently

user-pic
TruePhan reply to GoSixers on Dec 8 at 20:40
+/-

Stoudamire, Howard, and Pierce(I'm shocked too) did it two years ago. Magette did it in '08, and so did Howard again. That's as far back as I'm going right now.

user-pic
TruePhan reply to Derek Bodner on Dec 8 at 20:32
+/-

So saying somebody could means that I'm saying it's been done? 20 points is 10-15 shots if you're shooting 2s exclusively, without any free throws. Meeks is an outside shooter who has gotten 20 in a quarter. That game against Miami he took 13 shots, 8 of which were threes. He had 18 points in one nine minute run and then only 3 after that. If Meeks shot 10 shots, with more than half of them from 3, I'm quite certain he could easily get 20 points. That's not including free-throws. Therefore, it's more than a little possible.

If you posit that someone could score 20 points on 10 shots but no one in the history of NBA has ever done it to support your premise of '6 20 point per game shooters' than yeah it does matter if it's been done before. If it's hasn't happened in the 3 point line era than it's highly doubtful it ever will and your premise falls apart.

If you have a premise based on nothing but fevered imagination with no supporting data, then of course intelligent people are going to wonder where you came up wit hthe idea. Can you support it or is it just that you think it can happen and therefore it should be accepted.

I know a blog poster who thinks louis williams can be an MVP. Just because he thinks it doesn't mean it has a snowballs chance in hell of happening

Let him go. He's a "true phan", who likes to type a lot, and repeat "finger tip control" repeatedly to sound like he's an expert.

But this guy is right in my wheelhouse - you know the wheelhouse that gets me banned a lot :)

user-pic
TruePhan reply to Derek Bodner on Dec 8 at 20:52
+/-

Okay, Mr. columnist, gloves are off.

You seriously want to start this? Fine. To be honest, I don't agree with much of what you say at all. I don't think you know basketball. Scratch that.. You don't know basketball. LibertyBallers is a pretty big disgrace of a site, and I've yet to see a single person whose opinion I'd consider valid on there. The same goes for SBNation and BleacherReport. You all have huge egos without a reason for it. You also talk about stats and think that a scrub like Rondo is a good player. That alone makes your opinion invalid. Let's not forget how you all use internet lingo and most articles on there look like they were written by immature teenagers trying way too hard.

Any time you want to have a shooting contest we can see who knows more about it and who can put that understanding to use. Hell, I'll even shoot with my eyes closed. Maybe I'll shoot off one foot too. You can make a video and put it up on your site, how a dude who's hobbled can outshoot you any day of the week.

Seriously, I didn't want to go there but you kept insisting on it. Since you want to call me out, I'll be more than happy to let my game do the talking.


Also, tell me what fingertip control is and why it matters. I'll wait.

You all have huge egos without a reason for it.

You don't even see the irony do you?

(I think it's irony - I'm never sure)

Pop quiz hot shot - what makes you any more knowledgable than anyone else - you're here posting on someone else's blog (which means you aren't employed as a basketball writer by anyone reputable and probably can't even afford the measly pittance required to host your own site, or figure out how to use wordpress)

See, you wrote this long rant and all it really seems to indicate is that you came here to pick fights with people and rant and rave and show us how 'smart' you are.

(Keep in mind folks, that while you can change your screen name - your ip address stays the same and they know who you are)

user-pic
TruePhan reply to GoSixers on Dec 8 at 21:12
+/-

Neither is he. He's on sites that are an embarassment to sports. Anybody can write a blog, and well to be honest pretty much anybody can get hired at a newspaper or magazine these days. There's very few basketball writers I respect, and one of the last of them passed away in Phil Jasner. I think the Brian who writes this blog is a hell of a lot more credible than anybody on the joke sites of BleacherReport or LibertyBallers. Half of them can't even spell or form correct sentences.

I didn't come here to start a single fight. I could honestly give a crap who sees me as an "authority". I tried to share a few things, just like you all do, and get accused of starting fights because some dude's starting one with me.

Like I said, if you want to go there, then me and whoever thinks they know better than me can have a shooting contest, play horse, one-on-one, something like that. Otherwise, this little pissing contest(you are wrong by the way) is pointless and goes nowhere.

You keep spewing but you still haven't proved you're an intelligent person, an informed basketball expert or anything. You made some proclamations and were called out to provide some supporting evidence, and instead you resort to attacking other people. It's a standard troll technique for someone who really doesn't know what the hell they are talking about. Telling us you 'know more' than the rest of us, or insulting someone with more credibility than you could possibly hope to ever earn, pretty much just confirms you are a useless troll. Just one who uses a lot of words but still SAYS NOTHING

A lot of words doesn't mean you've said anything worth while, it just means you don't know how to get to a point

PS - I don't disagree with you about Liberty Ballers, but it's a cut above a place like bleacher report or philadunkia - both of which are atrocious affronts to common sense, liberty ballers is just a bit immature that's all - obsessed with being funny first

There's a lot of different writing styles on LB. The way Jordan and I approach what we do is drastically different than the way Tanner and Mike do.

(Although both can be good when they do attempt to write serious articles).

user-pic
Raro reply to GoSixers on Dec 8 at 21:53
+/-

And calling someone stupid is what exactly?

A matter of opinion on someones intelligence

user-pic
Raro reply to GoSixers on Dec 8 at 22:27
+/-

Ok. I was only pointing out the irony (ha!) of you calling out truephan for not ccontributing anything constructive. It's a vicious cycle isn't it?

And you added what exactly to this?

user-pic
Raro reply to GoSixers on Dec 8 at 23:18
+/-

You missed the vicious cycle bit. I was mocking myself as well

user-pic
johnrosz reply to GoSixers on Dec 8 at 20:41
+/-

hey Magee, have you come around on Thad at all with his recent play, or still reasonably down on him?

I don't come around on guys after a few games, especially when they're playing for contracts, talk to me if he does it for half a season or more, when he consistently rebounds at a rate at least league average for his position, can play defense, and understands how to run set plays.

Ugh, Boston is blowing Denver's doors off. I was hoping they'd have a tough game tonight and have to extend their old guys. Rondo's back playing again.

Brian what do you think Orlando needs to do to knock off the Celtics this year? I don't want to see those jokers in the finals again. I think the Magic might regret signing Q-Rich instead of Barnes.

I actually haven't seen them play at all this year. Based on previous years, they need a point guard who's actually a point guard and not whatever Jameer Nelson is. Someone who's going to make Dwight Howard better.

Yeah like Andre Miller! Only for the offensive sets though, because of the torching Rondo would put on him the other way. :)

Did you hear that Andre Miller though the NBA was soft because he got suspended for his charging penalty?

That's what it's called in hockey when you wind up to hit a guy right? I mean Miller took like a 5 step run before running right into griffin, the fact that he doesnt' understand why he was suspended is laughable

I didn't hear he said that but I saw the replay and it was pretty crazy. Is it true the refs didn't call a foul for that? I don't know, but if Portland continues to go down the drain I'd guess he could be available for a trade.

The refs excuse (according to eric pincus who covers the LA teams for hoopsworld) was that they didn't see it happen at the time. It was away from the ball so I guess that's a good excuse.

Miller said the suspension “shows how soft the league is” and confirmed that “the rules don’t apply for everybody.” The 12-year NBA veteran was upset for several reasons — the disrespect shown to him by the league and the “favoritism” given to young players chief among them — but admitted the suspension was especially tough to swallow because it snapped his consecutive games played streak at 632.

I expect he was more upset because of his consecutive games streak (is there a more selfish type of 'streak' in professional sports, favre and ripken abused their teams to keep their streaks going)

Oh wow, he plays a pretty unselfish type of game on the court, it's a little weird a streak like that matters so much to him.

I know he's always 'healthy' but his whole coming to camp out of shape thing and using the early part of the season to get into shape has always bothered me too, a lack of dedication to his chosen career is how i see it

user-pic
TruePhan on Dec 8 at 19:53
+/-

I'm glad the Sixers will be getting the best of the Celtics and not mostly the bench guys. I want to see how this team matches up against them at full strength. Their bench is pretty ridiculous though.

user-pic
Tom Moore on Dec 8 at 20:00
+/-

Five speakers at Phil Jasner's service today were terrific (in order, Doug Collins, Stan Hochman, Merrill Reese, Dick Jerardi, Michael Barkann).

Think Collins had the best line: "He texted me every day saying don't let me get beat on this story (when Sixers were working on hiring Collins)."

user-pic
Tom Moore on Dec 8 at 20:01
+/-

Hawes playing bigger role for the Sixers:

http://ow.ly/3mdVM

Man, there are some long comments in this thread. I'll get through them later on.

user-pic
TruePhan reply to Brian on Dec 8 at 21:03
+/-

I apologize for that. I tried to keep the initial comment as short as possible but there was a lot I wanted to mention. After that, well yeah, I probably made this comment section like five times longer than it would have been if I was less longwinded :P

I'll now bow out. I love the site by the way. It's refreshing to find one that doesn't sink to the levels of sbnation or bleacherreport or libertyballers and doesn't have the obvious ego of that site either. This and phuturephillies are really my only two non "official" sites(like ESPN, newspapers, magazines, etc) that I read.

SO I'm watching NBA Game time and they're showing a 'live look in' of the T'Wolves OKC game in Minnesota (Minnesota is bitch slapping the thunder in the first quarter)

Anyway, Kevin Love makes a basket and the PA system plays the meat loaf song "I'd do anything for love (but i won't do that)". I'm a big meat loaf fan but that's almost as horrible as when they used to play that annoying 'cool' sound effect when the sixers made a free throw

user-pic
johnrosz on Dec 8 at 21:16
+/-

I fear that Magee and Truephan are going to get into a lot of epic arguments like we just saw above.

Derek said a lot more to him than I did. I'm done personally, he's into the category of a few others on here who think they know everything about everything and have to tell us how very smart they are. :)

user-pic
TruePhan reply to johnrosz on Dec 8 at 21:24
+/-

Na, don't worry about that. I didn't know there were people who were gonna act like that. Now I do.

Anybody who wants to start a pissing contest can let their game do the talking, like I said to Derek Bodner and GoSixers. I'll be more than happy to let my game do the talking for me.

I don't comment all that often anyway, mostly because I forgot what email I initially used but really because I don't speak unless I can speak with certainty :P

user-pic
Jason reply to TruePhan on Dec 8 at 21:26
+/-

What do you mean by let their game do the talking?

He means he can prove that he knows more about basketball by beating you in a game of one on one - cause you know the large majority of players in the NBA turn out to be great coaches

user-pic
TruePhan reply to Jason on Dec 8 at 21:45
+/-

They seem to think that only somebody who writes for some blog or elsewhere knows basketball. Now GoSixers is changing it to talk about coaches.

Since any pissing contest between us won't get solved by showing knowledge or speaking about the game, the only way it would is by letting our game do the talking. They want to make me out to be some idiot online who doesn't know basketball and the only way for either them to prove that or me to prove otherwise is on the court. I said we could have a shooting contest and I'd even shoot with my eyes closed. That's the end of the pissing contest. The only way it continues is on the court.

Notice that they don't seem to know what fingertip control is though, one of the most important things to have when you play basketball. You know who talked about that? Pistol Pete, for starters. Then of course there's Kobe, Ray Allen, but since that doesn't matter I'd be more than happy to show them fingertip control in person.

Again, you don't even see the irony do you?

(PS - you actually started the pissing contest, but I understand how it would be hard for you to see that)

user-pic
johnrosz reply to johnrosz on Dec 8 at 21:40
+/-

also called rondo a scrub. my mind is blown.

Come on - dudes only on pace to break the APG record for a season - but anyone could do that with the roster he has - right?:)

user-pic
TruePhan reply to johnrosz on Dec 8 at 21:54
+/-

He is a scrub. Without the Big 3, what did he do?

Fine though, I'll point out flaws in his game: He simply goes for the steal when he plays defense, rather than play on ball. That right there makes him a scrub on defense.

He makes easy plays harder than they have to be. For example: He throws the ball to a perimeter player the same way you do for a post player rather than simply pass him the ball in an effective manner. On the fast break, you're not supposed to dribble unless you're going to score, and yet all he does is dribble and then when he can't score he makes a lazy pass or a pass that isn't the one that sets up the easier play and the person on the other end has to make a more difficult attempt than they should have to.

Another great example is in the way he takes layups. Instead of simply putting the ball in the hoop, he has to get fancy with it and try to make it look "smooth" or "easy" but unfortunately for him, he's not a good enough player to do that, the way a John Wall is.

He has the ball in his hands constantly and plays like a scorer rather than a facilitator. If he ran an offense like a true point-guard instead of dominating the ball, he wouldn't average very many assists at all, Big 3 or no Big 3. Also, the only time he passes the ball is to get the assist. A true point-guard knows how to initiate and then play within an offense and he doesn't do that.


He's nothing more than a stat-machine.

Boston seems to have run away from denver in the second half - did folks get rest?

Meeks is not unique, but he is a type of player they have not had for a long time- probably since Vernon Maxwell or Hersey Hawkins.

Meeks is a natural scorer with a great 3pt shot. He is not a pure shooter like a Korver/Kapono who can just just shoot, nor a defensive specialist who can hit the occasional 3 ball at a high percentage. Meeks is a high volume scorer with a scorers mentality who has great range. More like a Hawkins, Andrew Toney, Ray Allen, JR Smith, Ben Gordon, Arenas, Eric Gordon or Eddie House.

I'm not saying Meeks is going to be a star or more than a good role player. But he is something new for this team. I can't think of a Sixer since Vernon Maxwell that has a scorers mentality and serious range. But its a type of player that this team has missed for a while. And if he ever did developed a more complete game then he could really be a good starter next to Jrue.

The big issue with these types of players is:

1. Do they dominate the ball (like Arenas). Meeks seems like he quickly shoots or drives, and does not pound the air out of the ball. So a plus.

2. Can they give you assists? Drawing that mucjh attention a good eye for assists can make you an impact player. Meeks has yet to show this and did not get many assists at UK.

3. Are they selfish and do they shoot too much? This is always tough, since scorers usually have little conscience. Its rare to be both a scorer and a guy who knows when to pick his spots.

user-pic
TruePhan reply to tk76 on Dec 8 at 22:15
+/-

That's exactly what I was saying about Meeks. I compared him to O.J. as far as body build and how everything starts with his jumper but yeah, that's the kind of player he is and the kind of player I thought he was last year, a natural scorer.

When I say "pure shooter", I don't mean somebody who's only a shooter. Usually when you hear somebody mention a pure-shooter(usually another player or an analyst), they mention a guy like Ray Allen or Reggie Miller, as in a guy who has a pure-shot that he can shoot from anywhere. That's what Meeks is, because that's the kind of shot that he has. He wasn't like that in college or even last year, though he showed flashes of it last year. Like I said, he's head and shoulders above the player he was in college right now. Watch highlights from his junior year and then watch highlights as a Sixer and you will see a completely different player.

The only problem is that they drafted Turner so as soon as Turner's ready, Meeks becomes the 6th man. I wanted to see what Meeks could do too rather than draft Turner(because we desperately needed a shot-blocking big man and Favors fits that) but obviously that ship has sailed and Turner has to be your #1 scorer as soon as he's ready.

Yeah I was watching some of Denver vs. Boston too and I'm really diggin Afflalo's game. For someone who was extremely bad his rookie year when he was with the Pistons, he sure has turned himself into a good all around player and quite a shooter too. Nice to see, he should get a decent contract next year.

user-pic
johnrosz on Dec 8 at 22:20
+/-

1 on 1 game between Magee and Truephan, sponsored by Depressedfan. Lets get it done.

Andre Iguodala = Scottie Pippen
Evan Turner = Oscar Robertson
Jrue Holiday = Gary Payton
Jodie Meeks = Ray Allen
Spencer Hawes = Arvydas Sabonis
Thaddeus Young = Julius Erving
Louis Williams = Allen Iverson
Mareese Speights = ?
Craig Brackins = ?

Oh my sickness! Ibaka with 8 blocks tonight! I'm all a twitter!

Did they come back and win that game - the wolves were bitch slapping them in the first quarter.

Yeah OKC held them to 17 pts in the 4th to win it. I wanted to see some of that game but didn't get to, only saw the stats.

Not sure if you have league pass - but they rerun all the games

Oh no I haven't been able to get that yet. It sounds really cool that you can watch the games whenever you want!

Not totally whenever but I know there is an online version as well.

You know, almost as ridiculous as the claim that Rondo is a scrub is the claim that Kobe's a pure shooter. He can make some insanely tough shots, but just going by the numbers he's kind of a below-average shooter.

Some interesting lines tonight: LeBron, LePippen to some here, 33, 7 and 9 on 20 shots, Ty Lawson, 24 and 7 on 14 shots, and somehow, a positive plus-minus in 33 minutes when they lost by 16, a team-killing 7-22 shooting night from Kevin Love, on a night when he also got 21 rebounds - what a weird player - 41, 7 and 6 from Bargnani on 24 shots, huge nights from Felton and Amare, and 32 and 17 from Zach Randolph on 14-18 shooting. A little time left in that game.

user-pic
TruePhan reply to Tray on Dec 9 at 0:32
+/-

Almost as ridiculous as trying to make a point with nothing but stats.

Rondo IS a scrub. Plenty of people(on the internet especially) seem delusional about this though so I won't bother with it.

Kobe's not a pure shooter? For real? You seriously want to stick by that? Have you seen Kobe's form? How are you gonna say he's not a pure shooter?

And you're trying to talk about ridiculous. Damn.

user-pic
Court_visioN reply to TruePhan on Dec 9 at 3:18
+/-

you don't categorize a player to be a good shooter by his form. That's like calling somebody a good surgeon because he holds the knife properly. You categorize a player by his results. This means guys like Kyle Korver and Jason Kapono ARE good shooters.

Case in point: Michael Redd has one of the ugliest shots in the league but the shots go in (recent years notwithstanding), and therefore he's a good shooter.

The general consensus of a "pure shooter", then, is a player that shoots a high percentage and has range out to the three point line. Meaning he can catch and shoot from anywhere out on the floor and, assuming it's a good look, the shot has a good chance of going in.

Your definition of pure shooter, by contrast, seems to mean a player that has a good looking shot, with good form. And sure, good form is conducive to a consistent jumpshot, but a good looking shooter and a good shooter are not the same thing.

user-pic
Tray reply to TruePhan on Dec 9 at 3:52
+/-

I like Kobe's form but he just doesn't make shots at a very good clip. Your argument is like judging a golfer's putting by how pretty his stroke is. The only reason that even matters is that the pretty strokes tend to put the ball in the hole more often, but in the instances where nice form doesn't lead to nice results, it's simply meaningless. There was a time when Shawn Marion, with his ridiculously ugly shot, was a better shooter than Kobe. As mechanically awful as Marion's shot was and as pretty as Kobe's is, Marion's worked better. Even for their career, they've shot about the same percentage. As for Rondo, I don't honestly believe Boston would be such a good team without him. What are Pierce, Garnett and Allen today anyway? For all their knowhow and savvy, not really great players anymore. Rondo is THE reason they're an elite team, aside from their all-around defense. He's setting up a bunch of old men who can't create their own shots, not like they used to be able to anyway, and his brilliance in doing so is why they're good.

user-pic
deepsixersuede on Dec 9 at 0:02
+/-

When it was said that Jodie shouldn't try to do too much was driving the ball part of that? I took it as a plus that the night he went off for 20 in the 1st quarter and the defense pressured him he attacked the rim rather than forcing up jumpers. I am less concerned with his rebounding and assists than him being a versatile scorer.

Some of his drives last night were really disastrous. Like, this guy can't drive 15 feet on the NBA level disastrous.

user-pic
deepsixersuede reply to Tray on Dec 9 at 0:26
+/-

Did you see Sam flew to and from Jasner's funeral in the same day; I wish he put the same effort into improving his game as he seems to put into being a solid person.

That's sweet of Sam. Anyway, not every big man is blessed with offensive talent.

I think when Jodie gets a lane, or defenders close out too quickly on him, he should take the lane and get to the rim. I think the concern comes from when tries to take the defender off the dribble and create his own shot. Doug Collins said this in his postgame press conference saturday after the bobcats win.

"I talked to him in the offseason, in Orlando, and I said two prerequisities, Jodie, from me. First of all, you've got to be a high percentage shooter, you're not going to be a volume shooter, so I want to make sure you take good shots. Secondly, you cannot be a mistake player, you can't turn the ball over, because we have guys who are a little turnover prone, so you've got to be a guy who shoots a high percentage, who takes good shots, and who limits your amount of mistakes. If you notice Jodie now, normally if he dribbles the ball, it's because he's got a little straight line to the basket where he can use his speed, but he's not jackpotting around with it out there trying to make a play and getting himself in trouble."

After careful consideration, I'm sitting this one out.

Wussy ;)


Expand/Contract all comments

Leave a comment


back-to-story.gif