Bi Gal's Big Season

[NAOS]

The fact is: Al actually played pretty well in the playoffs.

This is debatable. If one wanted to debate it, they could flash the stat I quoted.

Was Millsap bad? <-- whatever the answer to that question is, it is undoubtedly a different conversation.

 

[franklin]

^^that (billyboob)

---

His game is perfectly suited for drawing fouls. When his pump fake gets the defender into the air, he needs to draw contact and go for an AND1. Simple as ****. What am I missing?

Bi gal loses two obvious hacks per night. The game is whatay is & I don't like to put much on the refs but Al Jefferson loses way too many.

 

[billyshelby]

This is debatable. If one wanted to debate it, they could flash the stat I quoted.

Was Millsap bad? <-- whatever the answer to that question is, it is undoubtedly a different conversation.

18/9, 53%. 4 free throws is a bad part of that, but that's not a bad performance. In other words, "pretty well" offensively. Defensively he was bad, but so was every guy we had not named Favors, and it's not like Favors was great.

As for Sap, there's no other way to answer the question other than he was awful. We don't have to have that convo, but he was bad WHILE he was being defended by Diaw. Doesn't mean Sap's a bad player, but there's no way to dress up what type of series he had.

 

[NAOS]

I'll change my tune about Al if the following happens:

1. He draws more fouls with his nifty post moves
2. He at least appears to give a **** on defense
3. We get him the ball in the post about 5-8 seconds sooner and he continues to show increasing willingness to pass

ideally:
4. We bring him off the bench where his defensive weaknesses might be masked by the level of competition.

(but I'll only stick to the top 3)

 

[idiot]

What am I missing?

At the risk of putting words in Billy's mouth, you're making two mistakes (or exaggerations):

1) Lack of fouls does not equal softness. It may be partially related, but there's a whole lot more to the issue than drawing fouls. 2) Softness doesn't equal ineffectiveness. It may contribute, but again, it's not the whole issue.

So when Billy says Al was reasonably effective, it doesn't make complete sense to counter simply with his lack of drawing fouls.

 

[franklin]

I'll change my tune about Al if the following happens:

1. He draws more fouls with his nifty post moves
2. He at least appears to give a **** on defense
3. We get him the ball in the post about 5-8 seconds sooner and he continues to show increasing willingness to pass

ideally:
4. We bring him off the bench where his defensive weaknesses might be masked by the level of competition.

(but I'll only stick to the top 3)

For all my criticism of JF & the world about Jeff, I think these concerns are plenty fair.

 

[billyshelby]

For all my criticism of JF & the world about Jeff, I think these concerns are plenty fair.

Beat me to the punch. Yeah, that's what I want from Al (although I think number 4 is silly.)

 

[theNBAnerd]

Al has the highest block/min of anyone on the team - even better than Favors,and at least double the rate of anyone else.

uh, yeah, cuz that's how you measure defensive prowess...

In addition to being a good scorer on the low block, he also has a good jumpshot.

yes, i know, both those things are true. but i said ATTACK the paint. when do you ever see al go up the chest of the defender? for that matter, when do you ever see him attempt to score with his momentum going AT the basket. nearly all his attempts are fading, hooking, leaning, falling or otherwise trying to avoid contact, which is why he gets to free throw line half as much as his peers.

Al has a better than 2:1 assist:turnover ratio, best out of all centres in the league and better than many of the so-called "creative" players on the team, like Hayward.

i love it when people point to his turnover rate (one of the statistical areas where he truly is elite) as evidence that he's a brilliant basketball player. al doesn't get handling/passing turnovers because he never passes the ball except for resetting out to the wing when his shot isn't there, and he doesn't get offensive foul turnovers because he never challenges the defender.

Fans who actually understand the game recognise Al's value to the team.

uh yeah, why don't you help me understand the game, mantis. it's easy to look at a box score and appreciate al. when you look at the bigger picture and see how he impacts the team, you realize al doesn't make us better in any way.

 

[NAOS]

At the risk of putting words in Billy's mouth, you're making two mistakes (or exaggerations):

1) Lack of fouls does not equal softness. It may be partially related, but there's a whole lot more to the issue than drawing fouls. 2) Softness doesn't equal ineffectiveness. It may contribute, but again, it's not the whole issue.

So when Billy says Al was reasonably effective, it doesn't make complete sense to counter simply with his lack of drawing fouls.

dude, the text you quoted was from a comment that was not asking for the answers you just provided.

 

[idiot]

dude, the text you quoted was from a comment that was not asking for the answers you just provided.

True enough, but a few posts later you also said that Al's 3 fouls shots were a strong counter to Billy's point that Al played decently (comparatively speaking) in the playoffs.

 

[NAOS]

True enough, but a few posts later you also said that Al's 3 fouls shots were a strong counter to Billy's point that Al played decently (comparatively speaking) in the playoffs.

I never said they were a "strong counter to" anything.

(you may also want to look at the posts were Billy, Franklin, and I agreed about something).