|
|
Post by Myles (SAS) on Jul 5, 2013 18:40:40 GMT -5
I haven't seen any posts defending keeping the offense, just seen posts about not getting rid of it (subtle difference, but important). Can anyone in favor of keeping it please post their reasons why?
|
|
|
|
Post by jestor on Jul 5, 2013 18:46:23 GMT -5
Arguing for not getting rid of it is essentially the same as keeping it. The difference is one of semantics.
That said:
1. It keeps greater flexibility of offenses.
2. There are some rosters who maximize their potential from it and others who will actually be hurt by it. One could argue that the 76ers are actually hurting themselves by running single-post rather than isolation.
|
|
|
|
Post by jake0890 (MIN) on Jul 5, 2013 18:52:09 GMT -5
Arguing for not getting rid of it is essentially the same as keeping it. The difference is one of semantics. That said: 1. It keeps greater flexibility of offenses. 2. There are some rosters who maximize their potential from it and others who will actually be hurt by it. One could argue that the 76ers are actually hurting themselves by running single-post rather than isolation. Exactly what Jestor said. There is no difference. |
|
|
|
Post by Vinsanity420 on Jul 5, 2013 18:56:07 GMT -5
Arguing for not getting rid of it is essentially the same as keeping it. The difference is one of semantics.That said: 1. It keeps greater flexibility of offenses. 2. There are some rosters who maximize their potential from it and others who will actually be hurt by it. One could argue that the 76ers are actually hurting themselves by running single-post rather than isolation. This is false. It turns a player into something far greater than he really is. A defense now has to account for non factor offensive centers turning into big factors. Not an issue of strategy at all. |
|
|
|
Post by Vinsanity420 on Jul 5, 2013 18:58:26 GMT -5
And if Philly is fine switching, then this shouldn't really be a debate, right? We keep the realism, and everyone's happy.
|
|
|
|
Post by jestor on Jul 5, 2013 19:00:33 GMT -5
Arguing for not getting rid of it is essentially the same as keeping it. The difference is one of semantics.That said: 1. It keeps greater flexibility of offenses. 2. There are some rosters who maximize their potential from it and others who will actually be hurt by it. One could argue that the 76ers are actually hurting themselves by running single-post rather than isolation. This is false. It turns a player into something far greater than he really is. A defense now has to account for non factor offensive centers turning into big factors. Not an issue of strategy at all. It doesn't add to a team's wins and because of how the distribution works, other players on the team then become worse in terms of their production, because the offense runs through the center, so there's very much a tradeoff to consider. |
|
|
|
Post by Myles (SAS) on Jul 5, 2013 19:04:13 GMT -5
What I mean is that the teams arguing against getting rid of it are just countering points, as opposed to bringing up their own points.
So I'm asking teams that want to keep it to bring up their own points.
|
|
|
|
Post by Myles (SAS) on Jul 5, 2013 19:05:40 GMT -5
Arguing for not getting rid of it is essentially the same as keeping it. The difference is one of semantics.That said: 1. It keeps greater flexibility of offenses. 2. There are some rosters who maximize their potential from it and others who will actually be hurt by it. One could argue that the 76ers are actually hurting themselves by running single-post rather than isolation. This is false. It turns a player into something far greater than he really is. A defense now has to account for non factor offensive centers turning into big factors. Not an issue of strategy at all. Yeah, you misinterpreted what "difference in semantics" means. It wasn't even referring to the offense. |
|
|
|
Post by jake0890 (MIN) on Jul 5, 2013 19:06:52 GMT -5
Vinsanity:
A) There IS a tradeoff. Centers improve, other players get worse.
B) Realism is not lost. If a team gave a fully healthy Andrew Bynum as many touches as he's getting on my team in real life, the results would be very similar.
C) I'm not winning games and therefore a simple single post set can't carry my teams to win and overpower everyone.
There's not a whole lot of points for me to come up with. This whole topic is a bit ridiculous. Vinsanity has beat my twice already even though I'm using single post so I'm not sure I see his argument anyways.
|
|
|
|
Post by Myles (SAS) on Jul 5, 2013 19:08:49 GMT -5
In response to B) what are your thoughts on Haywood and Favors production?
|
|
|
|
Post by jake0890 (MIN) on Jul 5, 2013 19:12:22 GMT -5
In response to B) what are your thoughts on Haywood and Favors production? Haywood is facing weak competition over a short period of time. Favors develops into a beast anyways, IIRC. Once again, short period of time, relatively weak competition. And we have a problem if the efficiency is off the charts. Shooting 75% from the field would be crazy. But that's not the case. The shooting percentages are average-good for a big man. |
|
|
|
Post by Myles (SAS) on Jul 5, 2013 19:14:53 GMT -5
Favors has a 56 SCR rating so he's not there yet.
|
|
|
|
Post by Myles (SAS) on Jul 5, 2013 19:15:42 GMT -5
Regardless, I'll take some more opinions and the admin team will discuss over the weekend.
|
|
|
|
Post by jestor on Jul 5, 2013 19:31:31 GMT -5
In response to B) what are your thoughts on Haywood and Favors production? Haywood is a high % shooter careerwise anyway, so it's not unreasonable to have this kind of output in a short span, especially if he's being made the focal point of the offense. Favors I'd have to look at. There's also the fact that Gary came up with these offensive systems specifically to address those who wanted more control over which players on their team took the most shots. So it's working as designed. |
|
|
|
Post by Vinsanity420 on Jul 5, 2013 19:32:28 GMT -5
Well, to sum it up -
Against:
This is a pretty basic lesson in Usage Rate, which is causing everything to go nuts. You don't run all your possessions through one player and expect him to maintain that kind of efficiency. When you do and it's successful, the value of your player goes up immensely and you turn into star material. We're losing grip of the realism factor as Haywood and Favors turn into stars overnight.
For:
This doesn't necessarily benefit teams, as the production of teammates goes down. By allowing this offense, we just add to the general flexibility of DDS offenses.
I disagree with this because the team has gotten significantly better for the 'Cats and the Jazz. The Cats really shouldn't be posting about building around Brendan Haywood. Good role-player turned into franchise material.
|
|
