Snaq in 08-09

[JoMal]

....... the evolution of the basketball as being more well rounded .....

Yeah, it took twenty years before the founders of the game figured out the square ball wasn't cutting it.

[jemagee]

Oddly/Coincidentally, a debate like this is kind of why i came up with the basketball journey idea in the first place, a place where 'both sides' can come and debate without anger - and present their views and maybe come to a common ground.

Hippie.

All Things considered - quite the compliment - thanks

[Joe Vancil]

Actually, I still think it's a good topic, jemagee.

Consider the difference in what a point guard used to be, and what a point guard is now.

Consider the difference between shooting guard as a role player, and now considered as often the primary scorere.

Consider the difference between the small forward formerly as your most athletic player, and now considered often as a role-playing defender.

It's definitely fertile ground.

[westkoast]

Actually, I still think it's a good topic, jemagee.

Consider the difference in what a point guard used to be, and what a point guard is now.

Consider the difference between shooting guard as a role player, and now considered as often the primary scorere.

Consider the difference between the small forward formerly as your most athletic player, and now considered often as a role-playing defender.

It's definitely fertile ground.

Putting a tiny bit of thought into this.....I actually think the PG might be the position that has changed the least.  Aside from point guards adding an all around scoring element to their game ala Deron Williams and Chris Paul they still play the same role to run the offense.  Are Chris Paul's nifty passes all that different from Bob Cousy's in terms of what is getting done?

[jemagee]

Actually, I still think it's a good topic, jemagee.

Consider the difference in what a point guard used to be, and what a point guard is now.

Consider the difference between shooting guard as a role player, and now considered as often the primary scorere.

Consider the difference between the small forward formerly as your most athletic player, and now considered often as a role-playing defender.

It's definitely fertile ground.

Unfortunately it's fertile ground that is beyond my ability to analyze for a variety fo reasons...when i was n grad school i couldn't wait to be the tenured prof - i had great hypotheses - i fracking HATE testing and analyzing them - so i'm going to do the grunt work of building and hosting a site and hopefully if there are people interested in exploring such things - and hopefullyy i can find people who are civil with opposite view points to express both sides of the argument - i can give them a forum to publish their information.

So - if anyone wants to write something up and have it appear somewhere besides here - let me know

[Joe Vancil]

Actually, I still think it's a good topic, jemagee.

Consider the difference in what a point guard used to be, and what a point guard is now.

Consider the difference between shooting guard as a role player, and now considered as often the primary scorere.

Consider the difference between the small forward formerly as your most athletic player, and now considered often as a role-playing defender.

It's definitely fertile ground.

Putting a tiny bit of thought into this.....I actually think the PG might be the position that has changed the least.  Aside from point guards adding an all around scoring element to their game ala Deron Williams and Chris Paul they still play the same role to run the offense.  Are Chris Paul's nifty passes all that different from Bob Cousy's in terms of what is getting done?

I don't necessarily disagree, 'koast.  But the idea of a "scoring point" like Arenas or Steve Francis - or heck, Jameer Nelson - guys who look for their shot as the first option really does change the game a great deal.  Consider the difference in number of "pure" point guards in times past versus the number of those types now.  I think that's a significant difference.

[jemagee]

Another fertile ground topic (I always thought) was not just how the definition of a position had changed but how those changes would change scouting a position...for instance, in todays nba would there still be a place for the less athletic but amazing point guards like a john stockton - or is john stockton a one in a lifetime kind of player? 

I'm also curios about how 'systems' can make some players seem better than they actually are - which is something i started thinking about after the ascnesion of boris diaw when d'antoni was running the suns - was it the system that played to diaws strengths and masked his weaknesses - was it a one year fluke playing for a ocntract - or was it something else?

[westkoast]

Actually, I still think it's a good topic, jemagee.

Consider the difference in what a point guard used to be, and what a point guard is now.

Consider the difference between shooting guard as a role player, and now considered as often the primary scorere.

Consider the difference between the small forward formerly as your most athletic player, and now considered often as a role-playing defender.

It's definitely fertile ground.

Putting a tiny bit of thought into this.....I actually think the PG might be the position that has changed the least.  Aside from point guards adding an all around scoring element to their game ala Deron Williams and Chris Paul they still play the same role to run the offense.  Are Chris Paul's nifty passes all that different from Bob Cousy's in terms of what is getting done?

I don't necessarily disagree, 'koast.  But the idea of a "scoring point" like Arenas or Steve Francis - or heck, Jameer Nelson - guys who look for their shot as the first option really does change the game a great deal.  Consider the difference in number of "pure" point guards in times past versus the number of those types now.  I think that's a significant difference.

Very good point.  Though I would say that I think they (coaches) are trying to force 2 guards into a point guard role because they are lacking the players on their own squad to fill that role for whatever reason.  Could be lack of money, space, the front office could not have drafted properly.    If you have a player talented enough to do both, like Arenas, you can get away with it.  Though I think when you look at Arenas, Marbury, Francis, and the other shoot first PGs you will see it rarely works out for the team in the long run because these guys get warn out and hurt more often it seems.

Now that starts up a whole new debate of players coming up with the Jordan mentality where they want to score and get the glory so it could be a lack of PURE pgs moreso then it is players being forced into roles that don't really play into their skills.

[Joe Vancil]

Another fertile ground topic (I always thought) was not just how the definition of a position had changed but how those changes would change scouting a position...for instance, in todays nba would there still be a place for the less athletic but amazing point guards like a john stockton - or is john stockton a one in a lifetime kind of player? 

I'm also curios about how 'systems' can make some players seem better than they actually are - which is something i started thinking about after the ascnesion of boris diaw when d'antoni was running the suns - was it the system that played to diaws strengths and masked his weaknesses - was it a one year fluke playing for a ocntract - or was it something else?

The "system" question is a great one.  I DEFINITELY believe that the system a player is used in affects his performance - much as Matt Harpring nearly went to the All-Star game his first year in Utah, while being a middle-of-the-road player AT ABSOLUTE BEST - before that.  I'd also argue that ROLE is significantly important - a player may be successful in his role as a starter, but fail in his role as a reserve, or vice versa.

And I'd even go as far as saying game-meaningless teammates often play a significant role in a game-important player's performance.  Sometimes, separating two players who play well together works against both of them.

[WayOutWest]

Another fertile ground topic (I always thought) was not just how the definition of a position had changed but how those changes would change scouting a position...for instance, in todays nba would there still be a place for the less athletic but amazing point guards like a john stockton - or is john stockton a one in a lifetime kind of player? 

Steve Nash.  Jerry West said his top 5 players are Kobe, Garnett, Duncan, LeBron, and Nash.  West seems to admire Nash the most because West said Nash did everything those other top 5 guys do with NONE of their physical gifts.  I totally agree, Nash is not big, fast, athletic or strong, yet he does what he does.

I'm also curios about how 'systems' can make some players seem better than they actually are - which is something i started thinking about after the ascnesion of boris diaw when d'antoni was running the suns - was it the system that played to diaws strengths and masked his weaknesses - was it a one year fluke playing for a ocntract - or was it something else?

It's a little of both.  Some players will not work unless they are in the right system and some systems will not work without the right guys.  Nash is a good example of the right guy for the right system.  Funny thing is Shaq is the perfect example of the opposite.  IMO a player is a bigger key on an NBA game than the system.  Kobe, LeBron, and Garnett are all guys that would work in ANY system.  College IMO is another story.

[jemagee]

How much of nash being a top 5 guy is the system in Phoenix?  I mean was he a top 5 guy in Dallas?