EthanSherwoodStrauss
- 33 comments
- 0 likes given
- 5 likes received
Bio not provided
@sammasaaron @EthanSherwoodStrauss @Aren't I'll put it this way: The shot selection is a bigger deal than the mood swings. The former is probably easier to fix, too.
@Aren't I believe I was quite complimentary of Westbrook, actually. Also: You're really going to assert that Westbrook's reputation is based on myth? Really?
@KirkSeriousFace Sorry, Kirk. Poor Mavs fans.
@mathjohnson Thanks for thoughtful comment, Matt. And yes, I'm fascinated by this uneasy turn of events for this seemingly blessed team.
@RomyN I'm fairly skeptical that Boston "offered" what they claimed to offer via anon sources. But I'd like to see someone ask Ray Allen if a better deal was really on the table. Based on how Boston moved so quickly to get Jason Terry, I'm guessing that they wanted to part ways.
"Morey not being a good recruiter is speculative"
"I think objectively speaking he's one of the best GMs, if not THE best."
Daryl Morey is one of the best GMs based on what?
@StrangerSong Good point on Carslile, but that's more about the shot-fake, swing the ball around the arc style. I'm thinking about shot-fakes in conjunction with other movement. The shot is faked as someone flashes to the basket, for instance. Not sure it'd work, just spitballin'.
@beckleymason Hater
@borisadm "Pound for pound" is NOT a strawman. If you haven't heard Iverson described as the "pound for pound" best, I don't know what to tell you. It was a ubiquitous descriptor.
@Mount Dikembe Nobody is saying that Iverson was "bad" for the Sixers. The question is whether his impact mattered all that much. I think the answer is "some years it did, some years it didn't," depending on how well he played. His offensive workload was so immense that the Sixers could rise and fall based on whether AI was having an up or down year. In 2000-2001, Iverson played well enough to make a hideous offensive team average on that end. The next season, a dip in shooting and rise in TOs did much to make that offense about as bad as it would be without his presence.
Anyway, I like this, even if I don't entirely agree: "All I'm saying is that it's going to be difficult to be a basketball fan if people really take these stylistic changes to heart. It's pretty clear to me that we should memorialize all the different eras' styles, but not become too attached to them. If we do, we'll feel blindsided every few years when we should instead feel wonderment in trying to examine and understand the ins and outs of the new trends."
I believe we should focus more on how rule tweaks alter this mysterious game, but I'm not a stylistic relativist. Certain forms of this game are better than others, and there's no shame in celebrating or ridiculing whatever system is in place.
@icinthedark @GhostofGeorgeLynch I understand what you're saying, but here's the problem: Generally speaking, we need to believe in the effectiveness to be wowed by the aesthetics. Once you come to the conclusion that he's missing too often and freezing teammates out, it's difficult to then get wrapped up in how cool the performance looks. There is no perfect correlation between efficacy and beauty, but most fans need to believe in the former to believe in the latter. This is why many Iverson fans tout "most incredible player to watch" while citing the Finals appearance as proof.
@GhostofGeorgeLynch Keith Van Horn had one good Sixers season. Don't hate!
@GhostofGeorgeLynch This is an excellent comment. I think, what I'm struggling with here, is divorcing my hatred of an era from someone whose play epitomized it. If no perimeter stars were efficient during that time, it's fair to wonder if Iverson can be blamed. And yes, there aren't really any combo guard slashers who thrived in the early aughts.
I can point to Kobe, but Shaq could account for some of his breathing space at the time. I could point to Vince Carter's (non MVP) 2001 season as example of how it can be done, sans bigs. McGrady's 2002-2003 comes to mind. But altogether, you're correct and this comment rings true:
"Unless you had Shaq, Duncan, or Garnett, your team was likely to be very inefficient."
As for Philadelphia's "well known" defense, we're in highly subjective territory. I can say that, living in San Diego (far from Philly), that aspect wasn't exactly hammered home to my memory.
ANYWAY, I can still quibble with A.I.'s horrid shooting and with the idea that his misses were more likely to lead to offensive rebounds. But at this point, I don't want to. I'm more interested in why the early 2000's atmosphere was so cruel to perimeter guys. Again, love this comment.
@beckleymason @JonathanBrill Been thinking about this, and it's an awesome hypothetical. I wonder, was A.I. close to the shooter Westbrook and Wade are in the midrange? Just how effective was he at finishing at the rim? It's quite conceivable that he'd be much better today.
@AndrewScanlan Dean Oliver evaluated Iverson as a "slightly better than .500 contributor," by the way. Yes, there is folly in citing just one stat, but quite a few stats speak to A.I.'s in efficiency.
@thecity2 @AndyGrimsrud For so many players, the improving jumper is in a race against declining athleticism
@AndyGrimsrud Appreciate it, Andy. I didn't fit this into the post, but latter Iverson had a good stretch with the Nuggets. So there's reason to think that his inefficiency was situationally-based. I'm not of that opinion, but it's a fair take.