- Joined
- Sep 9, 2008
- Messages
- 26,096
- Likes
- 9,073
- Points
- 113
This stemmed from the Miller v. Blake argument in the other thread...
Roy gets his minutes. But I can think of very few times where I wouldn't want either Batum or Webster on the court if both are healthy, so call that 42 or so minutes at the 3 taken away, coupled with the 6 or so that is Roy is going to get b/c we want a 3-guard lineup for some reason.
That leaves (IMHO) 144 (total at the 1/2/3) - (Roy's 30 at the 2) - (48 taken up by Roy/Batum/Webster) at the 3 = 66 minutes for Miller, Blake, Rudy, Bayless and Mills at the 1/2. NOW it's interesting.
For the sake of argument, let's ask this question under a potentially fallacious assumption that Webster starts (even if he only gets 20 minutes or so) at the 3, with Roy at the 2. Traits it seems we want in our PG (loosely prioritized: rank the players in order of best fit)
Defending other PGs/Perimeter Defense: Batum, Bayless, Blake, Miller
3pt shooting : Blake, Batum, Bayless, Miller
Court vision/getting easy buckets for others: Miller, Batum, Blake, Bayless
(Lack of) Turnovers: Blake, Miller, Batum?, Bayless?
Pure Scoring Ability: Miller, Bayless, Batum, Blake
Drawing fouls: Bayless, Miller, Batum, Blake
(did I miss anything?)
I weight the top two much heavier than the rest. B/c of that, the quick conclusion is that if it came down to a death match of who plays PG, I'd probably go with Batum over any of the other three, assuming his skills while playing with Euro teammates translates to the NBA (which, to be fair, is a big assumption). But even if he's a homeless man's Scottie Pippen, is that better for us at PG than Blake or Miller? (Rudy/Bayless will probably excel as the third/4th guard)
Having Batum/Roy/Webster as the 1/2/3 is a decent amount of firepower, long-range shooting, and hellacious defense. And I don't know that I've ever seen Batum or Webster very tired...they're both in good enough shape to play monster D and then hit an open three. If energy becomes a problem, Dante's shown he can pop in for a few minutes at the 3 and be scrappily effective. If the shooting's off, sub in Bayless or Rudy for Batum or Webster.
This whole "Miller vs. Blake and maybe vs. Bayless---oh wait, maybe Mills too" PG soap opera I think has shown that we have a lot of "mediocre" at the PG, and maybe with the talent KP's given us that we should look a little outside of the box for the best lineup based on skillset and effectiveness, not just start the most-capable-at-the-time short guy on the team.
Roy gets his minutes. But I can think of very few times where I wouldn't want either Batum or Webster on the court if both are healthy, so call that 42 or so minutes at the 3 taken away, coupled with the 6 or so that is Roy is going to get b/c we want a 3-guard lineup for some reason.
That leaves (IMHO) 144 (total at the 1/2/3) - (Roy's 30 at the 2) - (48 taken up by Roy/Batum/Webster) at the 3 = 66 minutes for Miller, Blake, Rudy, Bayless and Mills at the 1/2. NOW it's interesting.

For the sake of argument, let's ask this question under a potentially fallacious assumption that Webster starts (even if he only gets 20 minutes or so) at the 3, with Roy at the 2. Traits it seems we want in our PG (loosely prioritized: rank the players in order of best fit)
Defending other PGs/Perimeter Defense: Batum, Bayless, Blake, Miller
3pt shooting : Blake, Batum, Bayless, Miller
Court vision/getting easy buckets for others: Miller, Batum, Blake, Bayless
(Lack of) Turnovers: Blake, Miller, Batum?, Bayless?
Pure Scoring Ability: Miller, Bayless, Batum, Blake
Drawing fouls: Bayless, Miller, Batum, Blake
(did I miss anything?)
I weight the top two much heavier than the rest. B/c of that, the quick conclusion is that if it came down to a death match of who plays PG, I'd probably go with Batum over any of the other three, assuming his skills while playing with Euro teammates translates to the NBA (which, to be fair, is a big assumption). But even if he's a homeless man's Scottie Pippen, is that better for us at PG than Blake or Miller? (Rudy/Bayless will probably excel as the third/4th guard)
Having Batum/Roy/Webster as the 1/2/3 is a decent amount of firepower, long-range shooting, and hellacious defense. And I don't know that I've ever seen Batum or Webster very tired...they're both in good enough shape to play monster D and then hit an open three. If energy becomes a problem, Dante's shown he can pop in for a few minutes at the 3 and be scrappily effective. If the shooting's off, sub in Bayless or Rudy for Batum or Webster.
This whole "Miller vs. Blake and maybe vs. Bayless---oh wait, maybe Mills too" PG soap opera I think has shown that we have a lot of "mediocre" at the PG, and maybe with the talent KP's given us that we should look a little outside of the box for the best lineup based on skillset and effectiveness, not just start the most-capable-at-the-time short guy on the team.
