Bayless?

[julius]

I meant Batum admitted it, not Nate.

I was basing my post (using yours as a stepping stone) off of handiman's post.

 

[handiman]

Batum couldn't stay on Parker for more than 5 minutes and admitted it after the game too.

At least that's 5 minutes that no one else could give us!

(Did he really say that after the game? I missed it... And if he did say it, I'm curious about the context. Was he just being humble and gracious toward his countryman and likely idol, being questioned about his ability to "shut down" an elite point guard?)

 

[B-Roy]

At least that's 5 minutes that no one else could give us!

(Did he really say that after the game? I missed it... And if he did say it, I'm curious about the context. Was he just being humble and gracious toward his countryman and likely idol, being questioned about his ability to "shut down" an elite point guard?)

He said Parker was just too fast for him to be chasing around. It was either a video or it's in one of Batum's french translated interviews, I can't remember.

Regardless though, having Batum on a PG means you've got a defensive mismatch somewhere else. Not sure if I like that.

 

[Minstrel]

Regardless though, having Batum on a PG means you've got a defensive mismatch somewhere else. Not sure if I like that.

Not if you play another small forward, like Webster. If you play Batum/Roy/Webster/Aldridge/Oden and Batum can actually competently defend point guards, you have no defensive mismatches anywhere.

I'm not sure how long Batum can defend a point guard, but I think he could do a decent job for short stretches.

 

[Nate Dogg]

This tells me that Nate looked at game tape from last year and realized Batum was the only one that could contain Parker. Might as well give Bayless a shot and see if he can fill in...

Bayless will play against the spurs again. Then we can see if he can work against Parker.

 

[handiman]

As it turns out, only Parker's ankle could contain Parker.