A Challenge for Ricky

[warfelg]

Ricky - here's a challenge:

Since you don't like what we define as 'good' games from the team and the players I want to see you do this. Write for us specifically what a great game would be from the team and EVERY player on the roster. You constantly call out members of this board when we think that a player has a good game. Yet I can't think of a single place where you have defined this. And there has to be quite a bit of reality for this. Meaning you can't expect Jrue to have 1 TO a night as the primary ball handler.

And then here's the next part: Let us put up a rebuttal without belittling us about being wrong. Why? Because being in America we're all entitled to voice our opinions (freedom of speech).

So: Be a man, accept the challenge.

[RickyPrior]

Haha! I like it.

I will answer completely in due time. But for now, know that Evan had a solid OFFENSIVE game last night. His defense was borderline poor. And since I value defense, rebounding, ball protection & lots of intangibles more than (seemingly) anyone here, I cannot add all of these things up and come up with an A for Evan in last night's game. More like a B-. (In fairness, and to be accurate, I'd have to go re-watch his performance...which I don't plan to do.)

I take EVERYTHING into account. And never throw the term "great game" around freely.

For example, Jrue did NOT have a great game last night either. He had a great second HALF (again, offensively).

By my standards...it's very difficult to have a 100% complete "great game".

Oh, and it all depends too on one's specific role vs his ability.

Stand by.

[BChydro86]

If u take everything into account how come specific players are exempt from that?

[warfelg]

Just to clear up, this isn't a response just to what you said about last night. It's more I've been wondering this for a while and decided it's finally time to have a place where you put forth your expectations for a great game from each player.

Heck if you want yo put great game in one line and acceptable, and passable in separate lines.

Personally, and I feel as though others have as well, I feel that knowing what these levels are will help understand why you make the arguments you do.

Because knowledge is power.

[RickyPrior]

If u take everything into account how come specific players are exempt from that?

It's BECAUSE I take everything into account. See?

As I said " Oh, and it all depends too on one's specific role vs his ability."


Shush now, I have an essay to write.

[2-ONE-5]

LOL of course ET is the first person he mentions, classic

[RickyPrior]

As I sat down to write a reply to your challenge…I determined that it would take me so incredibly long to specifically list every minute detail of playing “great”…that no one would read it. It would be too long. It would serve no purpose.

And so I feel the need to simplify my thinking on the topic as much as possible.

1. No matter who the player is…in order to have a “great” game, he needs to have played perfectly, from a fundamental standpoint. Is he in there to rebound (and prevent the opposition from rebounding)? Is he in there to facilitate? Score? Allow OTHERS to score? Get out and run? Lead? And then, of course, did he DO those things…every minute he was in there?

Offensively, everyone is required to look for, create and recognize (high percentage) scoring opportunities for everyone on the team. Of course, sometimes, that opportunity will lie within himself. HE will be the best option during a specific possession.

2. I believe that defense (anything non-offensive, really) should make-up 65% of one’s “job” in every game. More than half of his effort should go into defense. In fact…if he were to “take a play off”…it needs to be at the OFFENSIVE end, not the defensive.

That’s because great defense will LEAD to offensive opportunities… (Which means, I guess, that you could make an argument that scoring, then, could be considered a form of defense). ☺ Anyway, great defense can also have the effect of demoralizing the other team.

Our goal, when I coached, was to notice a change in demeanor in the other team when we walked through the door. That sort of sick feeling one gets before an especially difficult exam. We were such pains-in-the-neck on defense that NO ONE wanted to play us. We made the game ‘not fun’ for other teams. And so we often won before we arrived.


Now, to summarize to this point, a “great game” can only be achieved if fundamentals are executed perfectly at both ends, especially at the defensive end. And that goes for EVERYONE. The above applies to each player

3. All the other things are dependent upon who you’re talking about. Their roles. Ie. I don’t judge Jrue, for example, on his ability to deny finishing at the rim. I don’t judge Hawes by his willingness to penetrate while looking for high percentage opportunities.

And so this is the part I can’t really get into without this reply taking up many pages of valuable PSD real estate.

But I’m not quick to ignore a semi-decent first half because someone plays a real solid second half. I’m not willing to anoint Jrue’s 4th quarter last night as “perfect” when he missed two (at the time) critical free throws late, and played less-than-inspired for the whole first half. Those things “count”. And, as I say, I judge as a complete package.

If I didn’t – there’d be no room for improvement. And that's the name of the game. The whole enchilada.

That’s why it is very, very hard to earn a “great game” label with me.
But it’s also from intangibles. Some of which are MORE IMPORTANT than the textbook ‘themes’ listed above.

a- While one’s ability will account for a lot from game to game, their character is what I’m judging…that’s what will keep them at the top once they get there. And so when I see, say, Evan pouting, whining, crying and complaining at EVERY WHISTLE…he loses points with me. Why? Because that nonsense serves no positive purpose. No teammate plays BETTER as a result of Evan’s whining. In fact the opposite might be true; it’s contagious.

b- I look for “fight”. I have no issue, whatsoever, losing a game we fought to win, from beginning to end. After all…it’s impossible to “give” more than you are capable of. By definition, there was nothing MORE to give.

c- I go back to fundamentals because I believe many, many players were never taught them. They know all the tricks…but have no idea WHY those tricks are (or are not) effective. Players today don’t understand the “trade”. And I believe that, all other things being equal, those who’ve mastered the fundamentals will win…every time. (Again, all being equal.) I am especially drawn toward players who WANT to learn them.

Every player has their strengths and weaknesses. We’re all human.

Everyone fails to varying degrees and frequencies., But the players who show they are actively attempting to limit those failures will slowly and eventually avoid repeating his mistakes.

I need to see improvement; even if only 1% per game.

Because by playoff time – he’ll be 82% better than he was.

And that’s pretty good.





Now. Line up single file to rip Ricky.

[BChydro86]

If u take everything into account how come specific players are exempt from that?

It's BECAUSE I take everything into account. See?

As I said " Oh, and it all depends too on one's specific role vs his ability."


Shush now, I have an essay to write.

Role and ability....

Thats an interesting perspective. So because iggy never showed the ability to play well in tha half court and he never drove to the rim, he gets a pass because thats not something he has shown the ability to do?

Hawes, has, on occasion, shown the ability to rebound, so why dont u dog him more for his pedestrian rebounding for a 7'1 guy?

Now i understand why u like jrich, his ability/ role is simply to take open shots off the ball, he doesnt defend at a high level, he rebounds well (so i guess thats just icing). Am i right so why dont u dog him when he does things he shouldnt like pull ups off the dribble! Just curious.

As for turner, he defends well at the 2, but has never shown the ability to be a great defender at the 3, we know this, so why dog him for it? Lol. His height and length give him a defensive advantage at the 2, which doesnt exist at the 3 where he has trouble with bigger guys who can hit shots over him (pierce, melo, etc).

[RickyPrior]

Role and ability....

Thats an interesting perspective. So because iggy never showed the ability to play well in tha half court and he never drove to the rim, he gets a pass because thats not something he has shown the ability to do?

He didn't 'get a pass' from me. I spent many a night yelling at the TV, asking Iggy to get to the rim. (Scratch that - I yelled at him to improve his ball handling in traffic so that he COULD get to the rim.)

What I did here was defend him from dodo's who didn't realize that Iggy contributed in 100 other ways. Lots of youngsters here who appreciate nothing but spin moves, cross-overs and slam dunkaroos.

Hawes, has, on occasion, shown the ability to rebound, so why dont u dog him more for his pedestrian rebounding for a 7'1 guy?

Things that are "occasional" are often closer to being accidental than they are potential. Hawes shows me very little, aside from maybe being effective at the high post, passing. I'd be interested to see him at the 4 when Bynum gets here. Beyond that...eh.

Now i understand why u like jrich, his ability/ role is simply to take open shots off the ball, he doesnt defend at a high level, he rebounds well (so i guess thats just icing). Am i right so why dont u dog him when he does things he shouldnt like pull ups off the dribble! Just curious.

JRich shoots too much from beyond the arc. I yell at him for that (at home). But, again, as with Iggy...most of my commentary is geared toward know-nothings who don't recognize him for the (pretty decent) defender he is...finisher that he could be (insanely athletic)...and leader; the only one we have. THOSE are his roles. And he's doing them.

As for turner, he defends well at the 2, but has never shown the ability to be a great defender at the 3, we know this, so why dog him for it? Lol. His height and length give him a defensive advantage at the 2, which doesnt exist at the 3 where he has trouble with bigger guys who can hit shots over him (pierce, melo, etc).

You spend too much time differentiating Turner at the 2 and 3, frankly. He will be assigned to the strongest wing player no matter what you have him listed at. And his offensive role won't change from one to the next. Now it might in a 'short line-up' or with no Jrue on the court...but I assume that's no what you refer to.

People here have long proclaimed him a "great defender". He IS a very good rebounder. He came out of college as a great scorer. He was the second overall pick.

Lots of promise. And so that's what I'm using to judge.

Like I said in my dissertation...I'm always judging improvement. And until this year Evan showed none.

Almost zero.

Add to that his 9-year-old-like character...and everyone here cheering for his every bowel movement...wala. He gets criticized by me. Someone has to temper everyone's (unfound) love for him.

And I will continue to be harsh...until I see consistent improvement. Because without that, he's dead to me. And should be for everyone here.

And that includes his attitude. Maybe even especially his attitude.

[warfelg]

To be 100% honest:

I enjoyed reading your theory on what makes a great team/players. It actually enlightened me (and hopefully others) as to why you say some of the things you do.

There are quite a bit of things I agree with you one. For example J-Rich is a good fit for this team, but yes he should step inside the arch more. But on the flip side I rather see him take a 3 than a long 2. What we got with him is where (I theorize) Iggy will be at the end of his career. Hawes is good in his role as a high post facilitator and it would be great to see him play with a 'banger' or a good rebounder to allow Hawes to do more of what he does well.

But there is one place I think I disagree with you. I think we're starting to see ET's role evolve. And I'll list my thoughts on that here:
1. Yes he never was a great defender. To be that you have to be ultra athletic. ET isn't. He can't be taught that. But that he can learn is to be a more solid pesky defender in terms of slide positioning, defending screens, ect. I wouldn't mind seeing him do the 'pesky' defender stuff Bruce Bowen used to do.

2. The last two years I think we as fans asked more of ET (in terms of focal point) than DC wanted him to be. He was a role player. The faces of your franchise were Lou, Iggy, Brand. And now its Jrue and ET (add Bynum when he suits up). I think we're starting to see a change in that.

3. And with that I think we're seeing a change, evolution, whatever in ET's role. And the step into it hasn't been clean. He's stumbling out of the gate. But I think we're starting to see a bit more of the scoring load but on his shoulders, and when you exert more energy on offense, something has to slip. Now to clear up I'm not saying ET is turning into a #1 scoring option. But I think he's starting to be moved into a position to be in the conversation of leading scorer on the team.

Anyways after that sidebar, Ricky I am impressed with what you put together. But I would like to see this. I think the 3-4 players your most often 'at odds' with someone over are Jrue, ET, Thad, JRich. So going just box score (since thats what some people on here salivate over) what would you consider a great, then average, then passable for each of those four?

[RickyPrior]

Honestly, and I'm trying to be evasive. I don't even think that way. I don't judge someone's performance by looking at the box score (alone). And so it's hard for me to say: "Thad needs to 12/6 for a decent game; 18/9 for a great one." I just don't think that way.

There are so many OTHER things that go into it that I believe I could be happy with a Thad performance in which he "only" went 9/6. It depends what we needed of him, what he did at the other end, what ELSE did he do vs. what did we need him to do?

Again - I apologize for the non-answer.

I'm much better equipped to give you a paragraph on what I want to see from each player on a given night.

(Though...that would also be sort of time consuming.)

[MylesKong]

As I sat down to write a reply to your challenge…I determined that it would take me so incredibly long to specifically list every minute detail of playing “great”…that no one would read it. It would be too long. It would serve no purpose.

And so I feel the need to simplify my thinking on the topic as much as possible.

1. No matter who the player is…in order to have a “great” game, he needs to have played perfectly, from a fundamental standpoint. Is he in there to rebound (and prevent the opposition from rebounding)? Is he in there to facilitate? Score? Allow OTHERS to score? Get out and run? Lead? And then, of course, did he DO those things…every minute he was in there?

Offensively, everyone is required to look for, create and recognize (high percentage) scoring opportunities for everyone on the team. Of course, sometimes, that opportunity will lie within himself. HE will be the best option during a specific possession.

2. I believe that defense (anything non-offensive, really) should make-up 65% of one’s “job” in every game. More than half of his effort should go into defense. In fact…if he were to “take a play off”…it needs to be at the OFFENSIVE end, not the defensive.

That’s because great defense will LEAD to offensive opportunities… (Which means, I guess, that you could make an argument that scoring, then, could be considered a form of defense). ☺ Anyway, great defense can also have the effect of demoralizing the other team.

Our goal, when I coached, was to notice a change in demeanor in the other team when we walked through the door. That sort of sick feeling one gets before an especially difficult exam. We were such pains-in-the-neck on defense that NO ONE wanted to play us. We made the game ‘not fun’ for other teams. And so we often won before we arrived.


Now, to summarize to this point, a “great game” can only be achieved if fundamentals are executed perfectly at both ends, especially at the defensive end. And that goes for EVERYONE. The above applies to each player

3. All the other things are dependent upon who you’re talking about. Their roles. Ie. I don’t judge Jrue, for example, on his ability to deny finishing at the rim. I don’t judge Hawes by his willingness to penetrate while looking for high percentage opportunities.

And so this is the part I can’t really get into without this reply taking up many pages of valuable PSD real estate.

But I’m not quick to ignore a semi-decent first half because someone plays a real solid second half. I’m not willing to anoint Jrue’s 4th quarter last night as “perfect” when he missed two (at the time) critical free throws late, and played less-than-inspired for the whole first half. Those things “count”. And, as I say, I judge as a complete package.

If I didn’t – there’d be no room for improvement. And that's the name of the game. The whole enchilada.

That’s why it is very, very hard to earn a “great game” label with me.
But it’s also from intangibles. Some of which are MORE IMPORTANT than the textbook ‘themes’ listed above.

a- While one’s ability will account for a lot from game to game, their character is what I’m judging…that’s what will keep them at the top once they get there. And so when I see, say, Evan pouting, whining, crying and complaining at EVERY WHISTLE…he loses points with me. Why? Because that nonsense serves no positive purpose. No teammate plays BETTER as a result of Evan’s whining. In fact the opposite might be true; it’s contagious.

b- I look for “fight”. I have no issue, whatsoever, losing a game we fought to win, from beginning to end. After all…it’s impossible to “give” more than you are capable of. By definition, there was nothing MORE to give.

c- I go back to fundamentals because I believe many, many players were never taught them. They know all the tricks…but have no idea WHY those tricks are (or are not) effective. Players today don’t understand the “trade”. And I believe that, all other things being equal, those who’ve mastered the fundamentals will win…every time. (Again, all being equal.) I am especially drawn toward players who WANT to learn them.

Every player has their strengths and weaknesses. We’re all human.

Everyone fails to varying degrees and frequencies., But the players who show they are actively attempting to limit those failures will slowly and eventually avoid repeating his mistakes.

I need to see improvement; even if only 1% per game.

Because by playoff time – he’ll be 82% better than he was.

And that’s pretty good.





Now. Line up single file to rip Ricky.

That's fair. Not completely consistent with past post, but I get the general theme and actually agree. Biggest difference is how great is used. It's more emotional and relative for me. Like if some has a great game IMO it's a game which is a marked improvement over prior games. Sometimes that's just meeting expectations. Other times, he's by far exceeded them. For the most part I agree with everything you said. That's how I evaluate players. However I'm certain the details are very different.

[RickyPrior]

That's fair. Not completely consistent with past post, but I get the general theme and actually agree. Biggest difference is how great is used. It's more emotional and relative for me. Like if some has a great game IMO it's a game which is a marked improvement over prior games. Sometimes that's just meeting expectations. Other times, he's by far exceeded them. For the most part I agree with everything you said. That's how I evaluate players. However I'm certain the details are very different.

Also fair enough...but if someone disappears for a full HALF...and then shows improvement in the other half, vs previous outings...did he have a "great" game?

Not in my book.

Or if he did certain things well...say made good offensive decisions...yet was dominated at the other end...did he have a "great game"?

Not to me.

(The first example is my take on Jrue's game last night; the second Evan's.)

Because if you start labeling those efforts as "great" (which Doug would NEVER do, thank God) we'll get no better. And that would be a disaster.

I wish people here would demand more. Not be satisfied when, say, Evan scores 19 points!! (but took 20 shots, as he did vs. Minny). He's got to get much, much, muchmuchmuch better at ALL PHASES of the game for me.

In three of his last 6 games he's had double digit rebounds. That is ****ing AWESOME.

Yet I took heat here when I questioned - during a recent stretch - why he only grabbed an average of FOUR in three of 4 games. All I heard was "he's a GUARD!!"

Quick to give credit; slow to hold someone to an achievable level. That's what many here do.

To me (and don't take this the wrong way) it's what separates fans (casual or rabid) from actual basketball people.

[BChydro86]

I think the problem is that rocky judges players overall based on their roles, rather than by skills and contribution.

[RickyPrior]

I think the problem is that rocky judges players overall based on their roles, rather than by skills and contribution.

In 98% of the cases, one's skill dictates one's expected contribution (their roles).

Know what I think?

I think you just like to argue.