my position is that we can't draw any conclusions from the recent streak because it has been against low quality opposition,

any conclusions about line ups or playing time are a wash on the rocks if they are founded in observations reached over the last 5 games,

we can gain clearer insights from the next heat game than we can from the lot of the last 5

IronWillGiroud wrote:Interesting,

my position is that we can't draw any conclusions from the recent streak because it has been against low quality opposition,

any conclusions about line ups or playing time are a wash on the rocks if they are founded in observations reached over the last 5 games,

we can gain clearer insights from the next heat game than we can from the lot of the last 5

IronWillGiroud wrote:Interesting,

my position is that we can't draw any conclusions from the recent streak because it has been against low quality opposition,

any conclusions about line ups or playing time are a wash on the rocks if they are founded in observations reached over the last 5 games,

we can gain clearer insights from the next heat game than we can from the lot of the last 5

Papabear Says

I don't think Memphis is a bad team nor do I think the Celtics is.

yellowboy90 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:If you really want great spacing, you should replace Shumpert with Novak in the starting lineup. If you care about defense and overall performance and view spacing just as one of many factors, then you start Shumpert and Tyson (along with K-Mart & Melo)

WHy would you replace a 41% (career 34%) 3 point shooter with a 42%(career 43%) 3 point shooter that can't play D? Neither one are great two point shooter but Shump gives you a little more. I guess you do not believe in Shump's range.

Here are some other numbers: Shumpert's win shares and wins produced are below average and the team is much better with him off the floor (+/- is -14.6!) Novak's performing better in all those areas. The only argument I can see in favor of Shumpert is if you say you give more weight to your eyeball test than to every available piece of data. I can respect that if you say it. We just have a different way of analyzing the game.

BRIGGS wrote:No way should we play Martin and Chandler together--that stuffs our driving lanes and allows the opposition to key on perimeter players and cut s down driving lanes. Both Martin and Chandler have no true offensive game--our resurgence has been based on excellent offense and swarming perimeter defense. Tyson would be a huge upgrade from what we have with Camby

Well the other choice is to play melo at pf. Both scenarios has its pros and cons. I don't believe in dantoni system that's focused on small ball and more offense. I grew up watching the old Knicks win games with defense. Defense is always more reliable than offense.

Its a no brainer for me.....start martin and chandler together.....dominate the boards and the defense in the paint....bring jr off the bench for either martin or chandler and you have exactly what you have now. Let your defense set the tone....these are like jabs in boxing. Jr smith offense and small ball will be your knockout punch.

You cannot out score miami over a long plyoff series....you need martin and chandler to protect the rim. And win the rebound total. Also reduce wear on melo at pf and shump at sf....both are playing out of position and will not last health wise.

Bonn1997 wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:If you really want great spacing, you should replace Shumpert with Novak in the starting lineup. If you care about defense and overall performance and view spacing just as one of many factors, then you start Shumpert and Tyson (along with K-Mart & Melo)

WHy would you replace a 41% (career 34%) 3 point shooter with a 42%(career 43%) 3 point shooter that can't play D? Neither one are great two point shooter but Shump gives you a little more. I guess you do not believe in Shump's range.

I was just presenting two possible scenarios - I didn't state whether I'd start Novak or Shump. I haven't decided. You can make a stronger case for Novak I believe but I'd be reluctant to shake things up now. In Shumpert's case, his 3 point percentage is probably well above his true ability and what he's likely to shoot in the future. It's based on a small sample, way above last year's number, and above his percentage on deep 2 pointers (36%). Most players don't shoot a higher percentage from 3 than from long distance 2 point shots - either the 2 point shots will get better or the 3 point shots will get worse. From what we know about Shumpert, I think the latter is more likely.

Here are some other numbers: Shumpert's win shares and wins produced are below average and the team is much better with him off the floor (+/- is -14.6!) Novak's performing better in all those areas. The only argument I can see in favor of Shumpert is if you say you give more weight to your eyeball test than to every available piece of data. I can respect that if you say it. We just have a different way of analyzing the game.

last year Shump on 3 48/157.

This year Shump on 3 37/90

I really do not know who shump is. Unlike other bad shooters Shump shows good form and it was one thing he got to work on over the summer. Also, last year raw numbers do not tell the whole story. I would like to see the breakdown on assisted 3 pointers, unassisted, spot ups, transition, and floor position. That would paint a better picture.

I also know about Shump's on/off numbers but that was before his improved overall play. His only good numbers was when he subbed for Melo and played in a 4 guard line up but the sample is really to small to consider. IMO. Should I not give him leeway when he is coming off a major injury? Even if Shump is around 35-38% from 3 I would want him over NOvak. Considering his play at the rim improves. Right now though just ride the hot hand. The jury is still out on SHump.

Also, I do not put great value in WS/WP. They have some value I guess.

Bonn1997 wrote:

blkexec wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:No way should we play Martin and Chandler together--that stuffs our driving lanes and allows the opposition to key on perimeter players and cut s down driving lanes. Both Martin and Chandler have no true offensive game--our resurgence has been based on excellent offense and swarming perimeter defense. Tyson would be a huge upgrade from what we have with Camby

Well the other choice is to play melo at pf. Both scenarios has its pros and cons.

I don't think that's another choice. Unless I misunderstood, I think it's the one Briggs is recommending - Martin at C, Melo at PF, and Chandler off the bench.

Woodson has two main options.....stay the course or use a traditional lineup with martin at pf.

blkexec wrote:

blkexec wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

blkexec wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:No way should we play Martin and Chandler together--that stuffs our driving lanes and allows the opposition to key on perimeter players and cut s down driving lanes. Both Martin and Chandler have no true offensive game--our resurgence has been based on excellent offense and swarming perimeter defense. Tyson would be a huge upgrade from what we have with Camby

Well the other choice is to play melo at pf. Both scenarios has its pros and cons.

I don't think that's another choice. Unless I misunderstood, I think it's the one Briggs is recommending - Martin at C, Melo at PF, and Chandler off the bench.

Woodson has two main options.....stay the course or use a traditional lineup with martin at pf.

I disagree with briggs....small ball for this team works during the regular season. Not the playoffs.