PDA

View Full Version : How much does fit matter? Would Memphis be better with Harden instead of Tony Allen?



valade16
02-05-2015, 10:38 AM
The question is to what degree fit matters. Tony Allen, as the defensive wing player, is a better fit for Memphis than James Harden's skillset.

My question is... does fit matter that much or would Memphis be better with James Harden?

So the question is: Would Memphis be better with Tony Allen or James Harden?

Why or why not?

D-Leethal
02-05-2015, 10:40 AM
Yes - fit matters that much.

That would take away from the backbone of their grit and grind identity. They would have to transition into a completely different style and type of team. Not saying it couldn't work, but it would take some time and you would probably have to move ZBo for more of a hybrid, athletic 4.

D-Leethal
02-05-2015, 10:41 AM
Thats too tough to say, they would certainly be much different, but its impossible to say if it makes them worse or better. Their defense takes a huge hit, but I think the Jeff Green move would make it easier to transition since he can take over the lead perimeter D role and his athleticism would make it much easier to transition into a high octane offense mentality.

kdspurman
02-05-2015, 10:44 AM
I think for their identity and style of play they are probably better off with Allen. The whole grit & grind, being physical on defense, and allowing Z-Bo/Gasol to be the primary options on offense. Of course there is no proof either way here, but based off how I've seen them play and be successful, I think this style/personnel/mindset is perfect for them

Shammyguy3
02-05-2015, 11:01 AM
This is a no brainer to me. Harden.

dhopisthename
02-05-2015, 11:05 AM
you guys really think the grizzlies would be worse with an all star/mvp canidate over a guy who doesn't even start anymore? their defense would be fine with green/lee

valade16
02-05-2015, 11:13 AM
you guys really think the grizzlies would be worse with an all star/mvp canidate over a guy who doesn't even start anymore? their defense would be fine with green/lee

That's a great point. Tony Allen was such an integral part of their gameplan and team identity... they benched him for the new guy.

Since they got Jeff Green, Allen is playing about 24 minutes a night. But yeah, he's so valuable the Grizzlies would get worse if you traded Allen for Harden...

Pierzynski4Prez
02-05-2015, 11:14 AM
Almost a dumber thread than having to choose between prime shaq and prime dwight

Goose17
02-05-2015, 11:18 AM
I don't know if they would be any worse but I think Allen is a better fit. They're a defense first team and Harden (although improved) isn't a good defender.

Let's not forget what Allen did to KD in the playoffs. That would have been very different if it was Harden on him lmao.

On top of all that I would be hesitant to take the ball out of Conleys hands, he's an excellent decision maker.

And there's not a whole lot of ego on that team. Harden would disrupt that.

InRoseWeTrust
02-05-2015, 11:20 AM
Really guys? The answer is clearly Harden.

Goose17
02-05-2015, 11:21 AM
And yes. Fit does matter more than the individual talent.

Teams win championships. Not individuals. You need talent but you also need chemistry and a bunch of guys that buy into the team ethos.

Look at the top teams this year, Golden State, Memphis and Atlanta. Talented? Yep. But also built a specific way for a specific system. They fit together well and have great chemistry.

You would have been better asking what matters more. An elite player that hurts the chemistry a little or a great role player that fits perfectly and has great chemistry.

I know what I would rather have.

nycericanguy
02-05-2015, 11:23 AM
You know I was thinking about this yesterday watching the Nets play. I mean they've had A LOT of talent on that team the last 3 years.

Dwil even in his NJ/BK days was still a really good PG, JJ at SG, Pierce, Brook Lopez, KG, ...etc... and yet they havnet been all that good.

Knicks had Shump, Amare, JR, yet they've been better with ADmundson, Lance Thomas and Galloway.

So many talented teams that suck... SAC has DMC who some say is the best C in the game, Rudy Gay who is a 20/6/4 player, and they had Isiahh Thomas and a slew of talented players yet they are always horrible.

Zbo was bounced around the league and teams trading him for nothing, then he found his home in MEM and he's a star again.

FIT absolutely matters, and I think the league is just moving more toward faster players and players that play the right way.

There really is no secret formula though, A GM can look like a moron even if he puts together a very talented team. Masaii wanted to trade Gay to tank and then all of a sudden TOR became one of the best teams in the East.

ATL had Teague on the block last year, and now they are 42-9.

Goose17
02-05-2015, 11:23 AM
Really guys? The answer is clearly Harden.

Would the bulls be better with Harden rather than Butler?

and it's odd three people have said Allen but only two have voted that way.

valade16
02-05-2015, 11:26 AM
And yes. Fit does matter more than the individual talent.

Teams win championships. Not individuals. You need talent but you also need chemistry and a bunch of guys that buy into the team ethos.

Look at the top teams this year, Golden State, Memphis and Atlanta. Talented? Yep. But also built a specific way for a specific system. They fit together well and have great chemistry.

You would have been better asking what matters more. An elite player that hurts the chemistry a little or a great role player that fits perfectly and has great chemistry.

I know what I would rather have.

But I think the chemistry and buying into the system is more important than the fit if a player is as vastly superior as Harden is.

When Bron went to the Heat people were wondering if they could make it work since they were a bad fit with each other. They went to 4 straight Finals and won 2. Their talent was such they were able to overcome their seeming lack of fit. Bosh and Wade were so talented Wade learned to play off ball and Bosh developed a 3 pointer.

If you're that talented, you can adapt and fit into a team. Just because a team has a particular style doesn't mean that they can't tweak or adapt their style to a superior one. The Hawks have an excellent style and identity now, but they would gladly give that up to add Michael Jordan over Kyle Korver. Yes, at that point they'd have a different identity and strategy, but different doesn't necessarily mean worse...

Goose17
02-05-2015, 11:33 AM
It doesn't necessarily mean better either.

And Harden wouldn't sacrifice like Wade did. Too much ego.

kdspurman
02-05-2015, 11:33 AM
And yes. Fit does matter more than the individual talent.

Teams win championships. Not individuals. You need talent but you also need chemistry and a bunch of guys that buy into the team ethos.

Look at the top teams this year, Golden State, Memphis and Atlanta. Talented? Yep. But also built a specific way for a specific system. They fit together well and have great chemistry.

You would have been better asking what matters more. An elite player that hurts the chemistry a little or a great role player that fits perfectly and has great chemistry.

I know what I would rather have.

I agree with that, though I'm sure there are circumstances where that may not be the case. I remember people thought the Spurs were crazy for not trading Splitter for Al Jefferson a couple years back (2013 I believe). This is just an example I guess, I know it's not the same as what we're talking about here, but Splitter does a lot of the dirty work and his fit/chemistry fit the Spurs identity and how they play that maybe Al wouldn't be able to do. (like, defense)

They made the finals that year and won it the next year, and his defense against Memphis the first year in the WCF and then Aldridge & Dirk the following year in those playoff matchups were extremely valuable. I don't think Al has that same impact, despite him being the better basketball player. We'll never know of course, but that's the example that comes to my mind for me

D-Leethal
02-05-2015, 11:45 AM
I think this one is extreme enough to be a no brainer, especially with a guy like Green there. And I honestly did not realize how much they have diminished Allen's role. But I do think in order to become a contender it would take a follow up trade and a new system/identity/tempo. They would be a pretty good defensive team but would need to become an offensive force. With Hardens penetrating style, I don't like having both ZBo and Marc in the paint. They would have to become a perimeter team and get a stretch 4 IMO to make it work at the highest, championship level.

D-Leethal
02-05-2015, 11:47 AM
I agree with that, though I'm sure there are circumstances where that may not be the case. I remember people thought the Spurs were crazy for not trading Splitter for Al Jefferson a couple years back (2013 I believe). This is just an example I guess, I know it's not the same as what we're talking about here, but Splitter does a lot of the dirty work and his fit/chemistry fit the Spurs identity and how they play that maybe Al wouldn't be able to do. (like, defense)

They made the finals that year and won it the next year, and his defense against Memphis the first year in the WCF and then Aldridge & Dirk the following year in those playoff matchups were extremely valuable. I don't think Al has that same impact, despite him being the better basketball player. We'll never know of course, but that's the example that comes to my mind for me

I think Spurs are a prime example, they NEVER recklessly add talent or add scorers, even in the midst of a few down years in the late 2000s/early 2010s. They are all about the fit and even while other teams in the West add big guns, add firepower, they meticulously add guys who fit the system instead of trying to match fire with fire.

If the Spurs had the chance to trade Harden for Leonard, I don't think there is a chance they would do it, even with their ability to slide Danny Green to the 3.

kdspurman
02-05-2015, 11:47 AM
I think this one is extreme enough to be a no brainer, especially with a guy like Green there. But I do think in order to become a contender it would take a follow up trade and a new system/identity/tempo. They would be a pretty good defensive team but would need to become an offensive force. With Hardens penetrating style, I don't like having both ZBo and Marc in the paint. They would have to become a perimeter team and get a stretch 4 IMO to make it work at the highest, championship level.

I could see how a couple follow up moves changes things, but as constructed? (without really a stretch 4) it might be challenging IMO. You're mentioning a follow up trade, but I guess I was thinking with the team as is, and swapping the 2. Then you're talking less playing time for either Z-Bo/Gasol and maybe even 1 of them coming off the bench. I guess like you said they'd need a new identity, but with what they have could they do it?

kdspurman
02-05-2015, 12:16 PM
I think Spurs are a prime example, they NEVER recklessly add talent or add scorers, even in the midst of a few down years in the late 2000s/early 2010s. They are all about the fit and even while other teams in the West add big guns, add firepower, they meticulously add guys who fit the system instead of trying to match fire with fire.

If the Spurs had the chance to trade Harden for Leonard, I don't think there is a chance they would do it, even with their ability to slide Danny Green to the 3.

Part of that is no one wants to play in San Antonio :laugh2:

But yea, there's no way they'd do that trade. They look at fit not only as a player, but as a person and their character. In fact, I'm pretty sure Pop or RC said they look at their character first when evaluating, but don't quote me on that.

D-Leethal
02-05-2015, 12:22 PM
Part of that is no one wants to play in San Antonio :laugh2:

But yea, there's no way they'd do that trade. They look at fit not only as a player, but as a person and their character. In fact, I'm pretty sure Pop or RC said they look at their character first when evaluating, but don't quote me on that.

I remember the quote. They asked what Pop looks for when he scouts a player. He replied "character, character and.......character"

valade16
02-05-2015, 12:35 PM
I agree with that, though I'm sure there are circumstances where that may not be the case. I remember people thought the Spurs were crazy for not trading Splitter for Al Jefferson a couple years back (2013 I believe). This is just an example I guess, I know it's not the same as what we're talking about here, but Splitter does a lot of the dirty work and his fit/chemistry fit the Spurs identity and how they play that maybe Al wouldn't be able to do. (like, defense)

They made the finals that year and won it the next year, and his defense against Memphis the first year in the WCF and then Aldridge & Dirk the following year in those playoff matchups were extremely valuable. I don't think Al has that same impact, despite him being the better basketball player. We'll never know of course, but that's the example that comes to my mind for me

A). I imagine SA didn't make that trade because they would have had to include more than just Splitter to get Al Jefferson.

B). You seem to think that just because a player is playing a certain way he is incapable of playing any other way. Jefferson is a perfect example. You don't think Jefferson would have played defense like Splitter?

Explain how he has played good defense in Charlotte? He is anchoring a defense that is Top 5 the past 2 seasons. He basically changed his game to fit the system the coach in Charlotte wants to run, a defensive one.

So again, talent is able to adapt and fit systems. The idea that Memphis gets worse because they swap out their backup wing for one of the favorites for MVP seems, a little crazy no?

D-Leethal
02-05-2015, 12:45 PM
A). I imagine SA didn't make that trade because they would have had to include more than just Splitter to get Al Jefferson.

B). You seem to think that just because a player is playing a certain way he is incapable of playing any other way. Jefferson is a perfect example. You don't think Jefferson would have played defense like Splitter?

Explain how he has played good defense in Charlotte? He is anchoring a defense that is Top 5 the past 2 seasons. He basically changed his game to fit the system the coach in Charlotte wants to run, a defensive one.

So again, talent is able to adapt and fit systems. The idea that Memphis gets worse because they swap out their backup wing for one of the favorites for MVP seems, a little crazy no?

Its really not crazy. Teams work hard to build an identity, a system, and an offensive dynamic that is very particular and very fragile. Changing that doesn't guarantee better results, even when the change is bringing in higher level talent.

Why didn't the Rockets get better after adding Barkley? Mavericks after getting rid of Nash? On a more recent and lesser level - outside of the obvious Nets and Lakers of recent history, how about Charlotte? Everyone swore they were on their way to HCA in the East after adding another great defender and triple double machine - yet they take a step back on D and a massive step back overall.

It takes tinkering to find the right fit of guys and the better talent isn't always THAT fit. A small tinker like Lance or even OKC Waiters can have massive consequences, a large tinker even adding a guy like Harden (or Dwight/Nash, KG/PP, Barkley/Drexler etc..). I mean why were the Nets so much better last year when they removed their all star Center from the lineup? Because the pieces started to fit, regardless if it was because they subtracted their best player. Players are not one-size-fits-all.

D-Leethal
02-05-2015, 12:47 PM
When the talent is comparable, the lesser talent that fits will always trump the greater talent that does not gel quite as seamlessly.

kdspurman
02-05-2015, 12:48 PM
A). I imagine SA didn't make that trade because they would have had to include more than just Splitter to get Al Jefferson.

B). You seem to think that just because a player is playing a certain way he is incapable of playing any other way. Jefferson is a perfect example. You don't think Jefferson would have played defense like Splitter?

Explain how he has played good defense in Charlotte? He is anchoring a defense that is Top 5 the past 2 seasons. He basically changed his game to fit the system the coach in Charlotte wants to run, a defensive one.

So again, talent is able to adapt and fit systems. The idea that Memphis gets worse because they swap out their backup wing for one of the favorites for MVP seems, a little crazy no?

-it was reported it'b be Splitter/Mills

-And no, I don't think he would have played and fit in the Spurs system like Splitter has/did in that time. We're talking about Utah Jazz Jefferson. P&R defense was especially poor for him, and he even acknowledged it. Splitter was far better in that category.

Now, does he turn it around maybe in a season or 2? Quite possible. It's also quite possible that the chemistry and familiarity & trust the Spurs have with Splitter has to start over with Al and they don't do what they did in 2013 & 2014. Is it not? Manu was especially familiar with Splitter and he of course is a big part of making the 2nd unit roll. They have great chemistry that they didn't have when Splitter first came aboard. It takes time...

Talent is not always able to adapt and fit btw. We've seen before guys teaming up and the chemistry is just not there. We've seen it happen both ways where it does work out, and it doesn't work out.

And I don't think it's crazy at all actually. You're asking a team to change an identity that it takes time to create. Long run could they be better? Possibly, yes. First couple years? Maybe not so easy to adjust. That's just my opinion

Htownballa1622
02-05-2015, 12:56 PM
My answer is Harden.


It doesn't necessarily mean better either.

And Harden wouldn't sacrifice like Wade did. Too much ego.

"Too much ego."
Not to get off track but I've seen you say this multiple times and I'm curious to what context/extent you're talking about. It comes off as being a negative connotation but I'm really curious as to what you mean by "too much ego."

valade16
02-05-2015, 12:57 PM
Its really not crazy. Teams work hard to build an identity, a system, and an offensive dynamic that is very particular and very fragile. Changing that doesn't guarantee better results, even when the change is bringing in higher level talent.

Why didn't the Rockets get better after adding Barkley? Mavericks after getting rid of Nash? It takes tinkering to find the right fit of guys and the better talent isn't always THAT fit. Players are not one-size-fits-all.

Your point is based on a faulty foundation. The Rockets did get better when they added Barkley.

The year before Barkley got there they went 48-34, had the 12th offense and the 17th defense and lost 0-4 to the Sonics in the 2nd round.

The year Barkley arrived the Rockets improved to 57-25, 5th on offense, 13th on defense, beat the Sonics in the 2nd round and lost to the Jazz in the WCF.

So again, your premise is based on incorrect facts. The Rockets absolutely got better when Barkley arrived. The question you mean to ask is why were they only so good for 1 year? The answer is because the next season when they went 41-41 their top 4 players: Olajuwan, Drexler, Barkley and Kevin Willis, were 35, 35, 34, 35. None of them were in their primes or close to it anymore.

Had it been Olajuwan, Drexler, Barkley and Kevin Willis in 1992 they would have steamrolled through the league.

Heck, that exact example could be used to show you how much talent overcomes fit problems. Clyde Drexler was a #1 option in Portland who attacked the basket and wasn't a very good 3 point shooter. That seems like a terrible chemistry and team fit with Olajuwan. Yet he was traded there and immediately conformed his game around Hakeem's and they won their 2nd title.

So not only does the Houston example not prove your point, it actively disproves it.

valade16
02-05-2015, 01:03 PM
-it was reported it'b be Splitter/Mills

-And no, I don't think he would have played and fit in the Spurs system like Splitter has/did in that time. We're talking about Utah Jazz Jefferson. P&R defense was especially poor for him, and he even acknowledged it. Splitter was far better in that category.

Now, does he turn it around maybe in a season or 2? Quite possible. It's also quite possible that the chemistry and familiarity & trust the Spurs have with Splitter has to start over with Al and they don't do what they did in 2013 & 2014. Is it not? Manu was especially familiar with Splitter and he of course is a big part of making the 2nd unit roll. They have great chemistry that they didn't have when Splitter first came aboard. It takes time...

Talent is not always able to adapt and fit btw. We've seen before guys teaming up and the chemistry is just not there. We've seen it happen both ways where it does work out, and it doesn't work out.

And I don't think it's crazy at all actually. You're asking a team to change an identity that it takes time to create. Long run could they be better? Possibly, yes. First couple years? Maybe not so easy to adjust. That's just my opinion

Again, you're overblowing the severity of your concerns. Al Jefferson went from Utah to Charlotte. Literally the very next season he was good defensively and anchoring a Top 5 defense.

What, is Popovich not as good a teacher or defensive game planner as Steve Clifford? Can you explain how he was able to instantly go to a good defender in Charlotte but would have somehow been incapable of doing so for SA?

kdspurman
02-05-2015, 01:15 PM
Again, you're overblowing the severity of your concerns. Al Jefferson went from Utah to Charlotte. Literally the very next season he was good defensively and anchoring a Top 5 defense.

What, is Popovich not as good a teacher or defensive game planner as Steve Clifford? Can you explain how he was able to instantly go to a good defender in Charlotte but would have somehow been incapable of doing so for SA?

Why start a thread if you just want to force your opinion on anyone who disagrees with you?

I'm not over-blowing anything. BTW, Al was 40th among Centers alone in DRPM last season FWIW, Splitter was 6th.

No matter how you slice it, it takes time. It took time for Splitter to get to this point in the Spurs system. It's not only defense, it's offense. It's about knowing where the pass is coming from before it gets there. It's about knowing where your teammates are when you catch the ball in the paint before you bring the ball down after receiving the pass. It's about knowing who gets the ball in certain situations, and understanding what Pop calls out.

You know how I know this? Cause i've witnessed (being a Spurs fan and all) guys come in who don't grasp the system right away. (Remember the Richard Jefferson experiment? He was more talented than what they had @ the 3 prior to his arrival but couldn't quite find his place) Splitter is also one of those guys who struggled. He hardly played when he first got there, because as a big man, it was tough for him to get where he was supposed to be sometimes playing along side Tim. Bonner played more minutes, because he has good "corporate knowledge" as Pop likes to say.

Character wise, I have no doubt Al would have fit. He's a character guy/humble and seems like a guy who like Pop likes to say has gotten over himself. Fitting into the Spurs system, takes time. Argue with that all you want, but it's true.

D-Leethal
02-05-2015, 01:18 PM
Your point is based on a faulty foundation. The Rockets did get better when they added Barkley.

The year before Barkley got there they went 48-34, had the 12th offense and the 17th defense and lost 0-4 to the Sonics in the 2nd round.

The year Barkley arrived the Rockets improved to 57-25, 5th on offense, 13th on defense, beat the Sonics in the 2nd round and lost to the Jazz in the WCF.

So again, your premise is based on incorrect facts. The Rockets absolutely got better when Barkley arrived. The question you mean to ask is why were they only so good for 1 year? The answer is because the next season when they went 41-41 their top 4 players: Olajuwan, Drexler, Barkley and Kevin Willis, were 35, 35, 34, 35. None of them were in their primes or close to it anymore.

Had it been Olajuwan, Drexler, Barkley and Kevin Willis in 1992 they would have steamrolled through the league.

Heck, that exact example could be used to show you how much talent overcomes fit problems. Clyde Drexler was a #1 option in Portland who attacked the basket and wasn't a very good 3 point shooter. That seems like a terrible chemistry and team fit with Olajuwan. Yet he was traded there and immediately conformed his game around Hakeem's and they won their 2nd title.

So not only does the Houston example not prove your point, it actively disproves it.

They hit the injury bug big time in 95 and 96 which skewed their regular season record IIRC. I don't think Drexler played over 50 games in either season.

And I wasn't necessarily talking adjacent seasons. The '94 Rockets had much less offensive talent than the Barkley Rockets and steamrolled the same Jazz team in 5.

And I don't buy the age argument, all the title teams in the 90s had their top guys in the mid to late 30s. 1 season is the difference from being a powerhouse to being "too old"?

D-Leethal
02-05-2015, 01:19 PM
Jefferson didn't turn into a good defender ever, he just played on a good defensive team and I remember guys here praising Clifford that year for his ability to hide Al Jeff on D. Don't throw out any defensive stats because even the biggest spreadsheet sodomizers know those are completely useless and heavily skewed by team success. They didn't start playing any defense this year until Jefferson went down.

valade16
02-05-2015, 01:26 PM
They hit the injury bug big time in 95 and 96 which skewed their regular season record IIRC. I don't think Drexler played over 50 games in either season.

And I wasn't necessarily talking adjacent seasons. The '94 Rockets had much less offensive talent than the Barkley Rockets and steamrolled the same Jazz team in 5.

And I don't buy the age argument, all the title teams in the 90s had their top guys in the mid to late 30s. 1 season is the difference from being a powerhouse to being "too old"?

1st point - Close enough to give you the point. Drexler played 52 games in 96.

2nd point - The Rockets had less offensive talent in 94 but you're missing 2 key points. 1). Olajuwan wasn't as good in 97 as he was in 94 and 2). The Jazz weren't as good in 94 as they were in 97...

3rd point - Yes, there was more to it than age, but unfortunately it damns your other argument. That season Drexler only played 60 games and Barkley 50. So injuries played a factor in their record too.

D-Leethal
02-05-2015, 01:37 PM
1st point - Close enough to give you the point. Drexler played 52 games in 96.

2nd point - The Rockets had less offensive talent in 94 but you're missing 2 key points. 1). Olajuwan wasn't as good in 97 as he was in 94 and 2). The Jazz weren't as good in 94 as they were in 97...

3rd point - Yes, there was more to it than age, but unfortunately it damns your other argument. That season Drexler only played 60 games and Barkley 50. So injuries played a factor in their record too.

So why did Utah get better as their core aged until their mid 30s as Rockets aging until their mid 30s as an excuse to drop off a cliff? Probably because they didn't make any crazy blockbuster additions to an already-made contender and let their chemistry continue to grow.

Did Hakeem get worse or sacrifice his game to make room for the two superstars that joined him in the years prior? Catch my drift?

You really can't just add in this league without subtracting elsewhere. Adding Harden subtracts elsewhere. Now if you get a net benefit or not is anyones guess. But adding Harden isn't simply putting a cherry on top of the ice cream, your adding some strawberry and some caramel with that cherry and it might end up tasting like some fruity garbage. Gimme that chocolate vanilla swirl you know is gonna taste damn good and let it rock.

valade16
02-05-2015, 01:51 PM
So why did Utah get better as their core aged until their mid 30s as Rockets aging until their mid 30s as an excuse to drop off a cliff? Probably because they didn't make any crazy blockbuster additions to an already-made contender and let their chemistry continue to grow.

Did Hakeem get worse or sacrifice his game to make room for the two superstars that joined him in the years prior? Catch my drift?

You really can't just add in this league without subtracting elsewhere. Adding Harden subtracts elsewhere. Now if you get a net benefit or not is anyones guess. But adding Harden isn't simply putting a cherry on top of the ice cream, your adding some strawberry and some caramel with that cherry and it might end up tasting like some fruity garbage. Gimme that chocolate vanilla swirl you know is gonna taste damn good and let it rock.

Utah got better because they added better pieces around their top 3 pieces. Stockton had already started to slow down at that point, but most of it was Karl Malone's insane durability and longevity. Most players don't maintain that level of play for as long as Karl did. He is the except and not the rule.

Heck without Houston doing the blockbuster Drexler trade they likely end up with 1 title and not 2, so it adding talent regardless of fit definitely worked out at least once for them.

I will give you props for that awesome analogy though.

Goose17
02-05-2015, 01:59 PM
My answer is Harden.



"Too much ego."
Not to get off track but I've seen you say this multiple times and I'm curious to what context/extent you're talking about. It comes off as being a negative connotation but I'm really curious as to what you mean by "too much ego."

I guess it does carry a negative connotation but it applies differently depending on the individual.

I can't imagine Harden going to Atlanta and being willing to average 15 PPG. Imo Korver is a better fit for the Hawks system than Harden. Now that doesn't mean putting Harden on there wouldn't make them better (who knows) having a go to guy changes everything. But it's a massive disruption for something that isn't guaranteed to work. Sometimesit's better to find guys that fit the system rather than getting a bunch of talent and attempting to fit a system around them.

I also think guys like that can disrupt chemistry.

His ego is what makes him that go to guy. He wants the ball. He wants to be THAT guy. But it's also the reason it's so hard to evaluate what sort of impact (both positive and negative) he would have on a team.

I mean if Harden went back to OKC as a sixth man he would most likely make them better right? But does anyone think he would be willing to come off the bench again? Would he be willing to play second fiddle to Steph If they traded for Klay. Would he be willing to sacrifice his touches/possessions and his stats/mvp status to let the memphis front court keep doing their thing?

His ego plays into it. And that's both a positive and a negative.

Harden as a second option won't work anymore. He's now the type of guy you build around, not add to a roster that already has a great system in place that he probably won't fit into.

I just don't think saying "if player X swapped onto player Y's team, that team would be the same or improve so that makes player X better" is a smart way of comparing two individuals.

First of all there's no way anyone can no for sure what the outcome would be (personalities clash, chemistry issues, the current system the team uses etc) it might look better on paper but the game isnt played on paper.

Secondly you have to consider so many other variables when comparing two guys.

And yes, a lot of the time what fits is more important than just splashing out for the top tier talent and throwing them all together.

MrfadeawayJB
02-05-2015, 02:14 PM
I'll take harden over Allen any day lol. Wtf kind of comparison is that?

MrfadeawayJB
02-05-2015, 02:19 PM
A better comparison would be how Jeff green fits the grizz perfectly (won 8 straight, 10-1 since he came aboard) and a similar guy with a bit more talent like Rudy Gay

Chronz
02-05-2015, 02:20 PM
I think Spurs are a prime example, they NEVER recklessly add talent or add scorers, even in the midst of a few down years in the late 2000s/early 2010s. They are all about the fit and even while other teams in the West add big guns, add firepower, they meticulously add guys who fit the system instead of trying to match fire with fire.

If the Spurs had the chance to trade Harden for Leonard, I don't think there is a chance they would do it, even with their ability to slide Danny Green to the 3.

LOL. False.

Spurs have tried to upgrade their talent base even during their championship seasons, they just couldn't land anyone. They actually believe in their ability to diminish ego enough to do it. From Kidd, to Tmac to Jermaine. Some moves are just no brainers. This would be an absolute no brainer.


Even if Tony Allen had a substantial role on the team, they would make this move for the simple reason they've been trying to reduce his role for years, they just never had the talent to do so. If a guy like Courtney Lee is giving them such a boost, Harden would do wonders for them.

They would accept this trade before Morey realizes what hes done.

Chronz
02-05-2015, 02:28 PM
I could see how a couple follow up moves changes things, but as constructed? (without really a stretch 4) it might be challenging IMO. You're mentioning a follow up trade, but I guess I was thinking with the team as is, and swapping the 2. Then you're talking less playing time for either Z-Bo/Gasol and maybe even 1 of them coming off the bench. I guess like you said they'd need a new identity, but with what they have could they do it?

New identity? They've been searching for an efficient wing for forever now, you dont have to bench anyone as the spacing improves on its own just by swapping out a complete non-factor offensively in TA.

valade16
02-05-2015, 02:31 PM
I'll take harden over Allen any day lol. Wtf kind of comparison is that?

Let me guess Goose... you know more about the Grizzlies than this Griz fan right?

When fans of their team are telling you it's a laughable comparison, perhaps you should listen...

kdspurman
02-05-2015, 02:33 PM
Let me guess Goose... you know more about the Grizzlies than this Griz fan right?

When fans of their team are telling you it's a laughable comparison, perhaps you should listen...

You mean like you arguing with me about Splitter/Jefferson? :eyebrow: (though he didn't say it was laughable, nor did I)

Chronz
02-05-2015, 02:35 PM
Its really not crazy. Teams work hard to build an identity, a system, and an offensive dynamic that is very particular and very fragile. Changing that doesn't guarantee better results, even when the change is bringing in higher level talent.
Teams work even harder to improve that identity.


Why didn't the Rockets get better after adding Barkley?
wtf?


Mavericks after getting rid of Nash?
Because they made alot of changes than just get rid of Nash, they also improved the team by getting rid of Antoine IIRC.


On a more recent and lesser level - outside of the obvious Nets and Lakers of recent history, how about Charlotte? Everyone swore they were on their way to HCA in the East after adding another great defender and triple double machine - yet they take a step back on D and a massive step back overall.
Yeah but injuries happen even to teams that stand pat.


It takes tinkering to find the right fit of guys and the better talent isn't always THAT fit. A small tinker like Lance or even OKC Waiters can have massive consequences, a large tinker even adding a guy like Harden (or Dwight/Nash, KG/PP, Barkley/Drexler etc..). I mean why were the Nets so much better last year when they removed their all star Center from the lineup? Because the pieces started to fit, regardless if it was because they subtracted their best player. Players are not one-size-fits-all.
Its about fit and talent but when the talent you bring up is as mediocre as Lance, nobody should be expecting a transformation.

Goose17
02-05-2015, 02:38 PM
Let me guess Goose... you know more about the Grizzlies than this Griz fan right?

When fans of their team are telling you it's a laughable comparison, perhaps you should listen...

I didn't realise one fan spoke for an entire fan base.

And he clearly said he think Green is a better fit for Memphis than Harden is. So he's not supporting your argument at all. He thinks fit matters but that Harden would be a better fit than Allen and Green would be a better fit than Harden.

That's what it seems like he was saying anyway. I'm sure he'll clarify if I'm interpreting his post wrong.

Your inability to separate "the better individual" from "the better fit" is astounding to me.

Goose17
02-05-2015, 02:39 PM
Meanwhile you argue with Spurs and Warriors fans as if you know their team better. Hypocritical much?

Htownballa1622
02-05-2015, 02:40 PM
I guess it does carry a negative connotation but it applies differently depending on the individual.

I can't imagine Harden going to Atlanta and being willing to average 15 PPG. Imo Korver is a better fit for the Hawks system than Harden. Now that doesn't mean putting Harden on there wouldn't make them better (who knows) having a go to guy changes everything. But it's a massive disruption for something that isn't guaranteed to work. Sometimesit's better to find guys that fit the system rather than getting a bunch of talent and attempting to fit a system around them.

I also think guys like that can disrupt chemistry.

His ego is what makes him that go to guy. He wants the ball. He wants to be THAT guy. But it's also the reason it's so hard to evaluate what sort of impact (both positive and negative) he would have on a team.

I mean if Harden went back to OKC as a sixth man he would most likely make them better right? But does anyone think he would be willing to come off the bench again? Would he be willing to play second fiddle to Steph If they traded for Klay. Would he be willing to sacrifice his touches/possessions and his stats/mvp status to let the memphis front court keep doing their thing?

His ego plays into it. And that's both a positive and a negative.

Harden as a second option won't work anymore. He's now the type of guy you build around, not add to a roster that already has a great system in place that he probably won't fit into.

I just don't think saying "if player X swapped onto player Y's team, that team would be the same or improve so that makes player X better" is a smart way of comparing two individuals.

First of all there's no way anyone can no for sure what the outcome would be (personalities clash, chemistry issues, the current system the team uses etc) it might look better on paper but the game isnt played on paper.

Secondly you have to consider so many other variables when comparing two guys.

And yes, a lot of the time what fits is more important than just splashing out for the top tier talent and throwing them all together.

I get what you're saying. I was just talking about "ego. "

If you mean confidence then sure. Every alpha in the nba has confidence. You don't get to where they are without thinking you can be the best.

I just had more issue with "too much" ego because I think james wants to win. He's a willing passer, great teammate, and has been nothing but great for the Rox.

Too much ego is me nitpicking but i don't like the connotation.

valade16
02-05-2015, 02:42 PM
You mean like you arguing with me about Splitter/Jefferson? :eyebrow: (though he didn't say it was laughable, nor did I)

Did I though :eyebrow:?

A). I imagine SA didn't make that trade because they would have had to include more than just Splitter to get Al Jefferson.

B). You seem to think that just because a player is playing a certain way he is incapable of playing any other way. Jefferson is a perfect example. You don't think Jefferson would have played defense like Splitter?

Explain how he has played good defense in Charlotte? He is anchoring a defense that is Top 5 the past 2 seasons. He basically changed his game to fit the system the coach in Charlotte wants to run, a defensive one.

So again, talent is able to adapt and fit systems. The idea that Memphis gets worse because they swap out their backup wing for one of the favorites for MVP seems, a little crazy no?

Doesn't seem like I ever said you were wrong did I? I argued that Jefferson was able to adapt his style to become better on defense in Charlotte.

I mainly argued with D-Lethal about the Rockets and Barkley.

So, I guess your snarky post needs a little work no? :eyebrow:

Chronz
02-05-2015, 02:43 PM
I didn't realise one fan spoke for an entire fan base.

And he clearly said he think Green is a better fit for Memphis than Harden is. So he's not supporting your argument at all. He thinks fit matters but that Harden would be a better fit than Allen and Green would be a better fit than Harden.

That's what it seems like he was saying anyway. I'm sure he'll clarify if I'm interpreting his post wrong.

Your inability to separate "the better individual" from "the better fit" is astounding to me.

Re-read his post, he said nothing about Harden. He was mentioning a comparison of Gay vs Jeff Green.

valade16
02-05-2015, 02:45 PM
I didn't realise one fan spoke for an entire fan base.

And he clearly said he think Green is a better fit for Memphis than Harden is. So he's not supporting your argument at all. He thinks fit matters but that Harden would be a better fit than Allen and Green would be a better fit than Harden.

That's what it seems like he was saying anyway. I'm sure he'll clarify if I'm interpreting his post wrong.

Your inability to separate "the better individual" from "the better fit" is astounding to me.

When did he ever say Jeff Green would be a better fit than Harden? Seriously, where in there does it say that. What's astounding is how completely you misread posts if that is what you seriously think he said.


I'll take harden over Allen any day lol. Wtf kind of comparison is that?


A better comparison would be how Jeff green fits the grizz perfectly (won 8 straight, 10-1 since he came aboard) and a similar guy with a bit more talent like Rudy Gay

kdspurman
02-05-2015, 02:52 PM
Did I though :eyebrow:?

A). I imagine SA didn't make that trade because they would have had to include more than just Splitter to get Al Jefferson.

B). You seem to think that just because a player is playing a certain way he is incapable of playing any other way. Jefferson is a perfect example. You don't think Jefferson would have played defense like Splitter?

Explain how he has played good defense in Charlotte? He is anchoring a defense that is Top 5 the past 2 seasons. He basically changed his game to fit the system the coach in Charlotte wants to run, a defensive one.

So again, talent is able to adapt and fit systems. The idea that Memphis gets worse because they swap out their backup wing for one of the favorites for MVP seems, a little crazy no?

Doesn't seem like I ever said you were wrong did I? I argued that Jefferson was able to adapt his style to become better on defense in Charlotte.

I mainly argued with D-Lethal about the Rockets and Barkley.

So, I guess your snarky post needs a little work no? :eyebrow:


Again, you're overblowing the severity of your concerns. Al Jefferson went from Utah to Charlotte. Literally the very next season he was good defensively and anchoring a Top 5 defense.

What, is Popovich not as good a teacher or defensive game planner as Steve Clifford? Can you explain how he was able to instantly go to a good defender in Charlotte but would have somehow been incapable of doing so for SA?

You forgot a post of yours.... You're telling me i'm overblowing a concern that was obvious by thinking Al Jefferson was the reason Charlotte became a top 5 defense and thinking he'd immediately have that defensive impact on SA. That post of yours seemed snarky/defensive... I was trying to get my point across, you came off as defensive cause I didn't agree with you.

I read many articles and saw what a lot of the stat geeks were saying @ the time when the trade was rumored, but you're telling me I'm overblowing it? IDk man

kdspurman
02-05-2015, 02:54 PM
New identity? They've been searching for an efficient wing for forever now, you dont have to bench anyone as the spacing improves on its own just by swapping out a complete non-factor offensively in TA.

Grit & Grind was/is their identity as far as I know, though I know they've been more diverse offensively the past year or 2. I mean they made it to the WCF a couple years ago, and a Z-Bo suspension away from maybe returning there for a 2nd year.

I know they would have liked someone who can create on the wing, but I thought they had their identity in place

Tony_Starks
02-05-2015, 03:01 PM
That's really a tough question. For me it would boil down to how much Harden is willing to commit to defense. He has shown flashes of actually being a decent defender when he really concentrates on it. If they could get him to buy in even at the expense of his scoring then yeah no doubt I'd take him.

If its going to be the somtimey D that I see now then no thanks, I'd stick with Tony. He's a guy that I can throw his stat sheet out of the window and still know exactly what I'm going to get every game.

MrfadeawayJB
02-05-2015, 03:01 PM
What I said or meant to say was:

Allen is a better fit with mentality. However I'd sacrifice a little grit and grind mentality to get harden. The grind mentality is not limited to the defensive end. We grind on offense with points in the paint and an inside out approach. If we lost Allen defense might take a hit but it's always been team defense over individual defense. We got Gasol (DPOY), Conley, lee, green (tools to be solid) calathes, and other good defensive players.


My next post was stating that comparing Green to Gay would be a better comparison. Yes, Rudy is a more talented player in many peoples eyes, but I'd take Green over him. Shoot, we made it further with prince than Gay, simply because he was a better fit that allowed ZBO and Gasol to get touches.

valade16
02-05-2015, 03:07 PM
Grit & Grind was/is their identity as far as I know, though I know they've been more diverse offensively the past year or 2. I mean they made it to the WCF a couple years ago, and a Z-Bo suspension away from maybe returning there for a 2nd year.

I know they would have liked someone who can create on the wing, but I thought they had their identity in place

But the question we have to ask ourselves, is that one guy the entirety of their identity?

If you take away Tony Allen do they know longer have that grit? That toughness? Would Conley, ZBo, and Marc no longer be gritty or tough?

You (and by you I don't necessarily mean you) seem to think one player completely defines the team. If you take Allen away from the Grizzlies they fall apart. If you take Klay away from the Warriors their defense falls apart. To a lesser extent if you take Splitter away from the Spurs they fall apart.

Splitter has never played more than 24 MPG. The last 2 seasons he's at 20 MPG. He's currently 10th on the Spurs in MPG. I mean, are you saying that the Spurs would no longer be a great team if they had Al Jefferson instead of Tiago Splitter? That they wouldn't have won their last 2 titles?

kdspurman
02-05-2015, 03:09 PM
What I said or meant to say was:

Allen is a better fit with mentality. However I'd sacrifice a little grit and grind mentality to get harden. The grind mentality is not limited to the defensive end. We grind on offense with points in the paint and an inside out approach. If we lost Allen defense might take a hit but it's always been team defense over individual defense. We got Gasol (DPOY), Conley, lee, green (tools to be solid) calathes, and other good defensive players.


My next post was stating that comparing Green to Gay would be a better comparison. Yes, Rudy is a more talented player in many peoples eyes, but I'd take Green over him. Shoot, we made it further with prince than Gay, simply because he was a better fit that allowed ZBO and Gasol to get touches.

I feel like you're saying sort of both scenarios are possible. Not relating to Harden/Allen specifically, but more so, more individual talent doesn't always equal a better fit (Gay vs Prince as an example) which seems fair/reasonable. It's a case by case basis

mngopher35
02-05-2015, 03:19 PM
Fit matters for sure when you look at a team. With that said this is an obvious situation where you take harden IMO. The talent difference between the two is way too big.

Adding harden to Memphis wouldn't create any major flaws with fit but would upgrade their talent a lot. They would still have good defenders but would add an elite playmaker on offense which they actually could use.

kdspurman
02-05-2015, 03:19 PM
But the question we have to ask ourselves, is that one guy the entirety of their identity?

If you take away Tony Allen do they know longer have that grit? That toughness? Would Conley, ZBo, and Marc no longer be gritty or tough?

You (and by you I don't necessarily mean you) seem to think one player completely defines the team. If you take Allen away from the Grizzlies they fall apart. If you take Klay away from the Warriors their defense falls apart. To a lesser extent if you take Splitter away from the Spurs they fall apart.

Splitter has never played more than 24 MPG. The last 2 seasons he's at 20 MPG. He's currently 10th on the Spurs in MPG. I mean, are you saying that the Spurs would no longer be a great team if they had Al Jefferson instead of Tiago Splitter? That they wouldn't have won their last 2 titles?

It's not 1 guy, but from my thinking/opinion, each guy sort of makes a team. It's like having the right pieces of a puzzle. You remove a piece that maybe doesn't have the bigger role he had a year or 2 ago, you also lose a guy who is big in their locker room and close to the Grizzlies core guys. Now, like I said I'm not saying it wouldn't work (I mentioned this earlier), but I don't think it'd happen quickly. I think it'd be a process, cause I think there's something to be said for chemistry & trust.

& Splitter has missed 20+ games due to a calf injury so his MPG this year are not accurate numbers to go off of. Pop is playing him less. But yea, for SA, playing 24MPG is about right for someone in his role, especially last year when no Spur played 30MPG. And I don't think they win the title last year with Al. Splitter was far too valuable in defending against teams like Portland/Dallas. He's a much more versatile defender than Al. His passing ability as well is just another reason he's so valuable

Chronz
02-05-2015, 03:26 PM
Grit & Grind was/is their identity as far as I know, though I know they've been more diverse offensively the past year or 2. I mean they made it to the WCF a couple years ago, and a Z-Bo suspension away from maybe returning there for a 2nd year.
They were grit and grind because it was literally the only way they could win, the point is to be a well rounded team with as few weaknesses as possible. Nobody should ever strive to be 1 dimensional, Im pretty sure thats why the Grizz brought in Hollinger and canned the coach with simplistic/outdated ideals.

D-Leethal
02-05-2015, 03:26 PM
But the question we have to ask ourselves, is that one guy the entirety of their identity?

If you take away Tony Allen do they know longer have that grit? That toughness? Would Conley, ZBo, and Marc no longer be gritty or tough?

You (and by you I don't necessarily mean you) seem to think one player completely defines the team. If you take Allen away from the Grizzlies they fall apart. If you take Klay away from the Warriors their defense falls apart. To a lesser extent if you take Splitter away from the Spurs they fall apart.

Splitter has never played more than 24 MPG. The last 2 seasons he's at 20 MPG. He's currently 10th on the Spurs in MPG. I mean, are you saying that the Spurs would no longer be a great team if they had Al Jefferson instead of Tiago Splitter? That they wouldn't have won their last 2 titles?

Nobody is saying they would fall apart, we are questioning if they would be better. They can be a 55 win team with Harden but win 60 with Allen. No one is saying Harden goes there and they don't make the playoffs. He would have to water his game down with the pound the paint approach they have and would have to handle the ball less with Conley. He would have far less room to penetrate which is his bread and butter. He would be relegated mostly to spot shooting off the inside-out game and is James Harden really who you want if he is just going to be a floor spreader?

Something tells me if Miami had a prime Kurt Thomas they would have been better off than the 2010-2014 Chris Bosh, who did nothing but shoot jumpers off kickouts. Kurt Thomas can do that, probably better, and bring better defense. Someone can play the 3 and D role better than Harden if thats all you're gonna ask him to do.

This is for the guys saying they wouldn't have to change their identity because their spacing would be better. Your basically getting half of what Harden can potentially give you offensively, a completely watered down Harden in the role he would be playing wh taking a monstrous hit on defense.

D-Leethal
02-05-2015, 03:31 PM
Fit matters for sure when you look at a team. With that said this is an obvious situation where you take harden IMO. The talent difference between the two is way too big.

Adding harden to Memphis wouldn't create any major flaws with fit but would upgrade their talent a lot. They would still have good defenders but would add an elite playmaker on offense which they actually could use.

I think its obvious you take the talent because you can likely design a better team in the long run with a couple follow up moves i.e. trading Zbo and turning into a more uptempo squad while maintaining a defensive identity (similar to how GSW transitioned this year from Mark's old school defensive philosophy to Kerr's free flowing offense, while maintaining a great D).

I don't think simply adding Harden for Allen and keeping their current roster and identity definitively makes them better. But with a tweak it could make them MUCH better long term.

Harden likes to iso at the top of the key, drive and flop or kick to shooters, how is he gonna do that at his peak level with Marc and Zbo packing the paint? He's not. Because its not an ideal fit. Moving ZBo could certainly make it damn close to an ideal fit though.

Chronz
02-05-2015, 03:34 PM
That's really a tough question. For me it would boil down to how much Harden is willing to commit to defense. He has shown flashes of actually being a decent defender when he really concentrates on it. If they could get him to buy in even at the expense of his scoring then yeah no doubt I'd take him.

If its going to be the somtimey D that I see now then no thanks, I'd stick with Tony. He's a guy that I can throw his stat sheet out of the window and still know exactly what I'm going to get every game.

Thats part of the problem.

valade16
02-05-2015, 03:37 PM
Nobody is saying they would fall apart, we are questioning if they would be better. They can be a 55 win team with Harden but win 60 with Allen. No one is saying Harden goes there and they don't make the playoffs. He would have to water his game down with the pound the paint approach they have and would have to handle the ball less with Conley. He would have far less room to penetrate which is his bread and butter. He would be relegated mostly to spot shooting off the inside-out game and is James Harden really who you want if he is just going to be a floor spreader?

Something tells me if Miami had a prime Kurt Thomas they would have been better off than the 2010-2014 Chris Bosh, who did nothing but shoot jumpers off kickouts. Kurt Thomas can do that, probably better, and bring better defense. Someone can play the 3 and D role better than Harden if thats all you're gonna ask him to do.

This is for the guys saying they wouldn't have to change their identity because their spacing would be better. Your basically getting half of what Harden can potentially give you offensively, a completely watered down Harden in the role he would be playing wh taking a monstrous hit on defense.

So you're saying Memphis right now is a 60 win team because Tony Allen plays 24 minutes a night off the bench but if you switch him with James Harden, a Top 2 MVP candidate, they'd be closer to a 55 win team?

Heck, Tony Allen comes off the bench. Just put Harden on the bench in his role in OKC and how are they not instantly a better team?

Again, I know fit is incredibly important in the NBA. But I'm saying when the talent level is this steep, it's a no brainer. I think Conley, Harden, Green, ZBo and Marc could figure out how to make it work on offense. There's too much talent there not to be able to score.

mngopher35
02-05-2015, 03:40 PM
Nobody is saying they would fall apart, we are questioning if they would be better. They can be a 55 win team with Harden but win 60 with Allen. No one is saying Harden goes there and they don't make the playoffs. He would have to water his game down with the pound the paint approach they have and would have to handle the ball less with Conley. He would have far less room to penetrate which is his bread and butter. He would be relegated mostly to spot shooting off the inside-out game and is James Harden really who you want if he is just going to be a floor spreader?

Something tells me if Miami had a prime Kurt Thomas they would have been better off than the 2010-2014 Chris Bosh, who did nothing but shoot jumpers off kickouts. Kurt Thomas can do that, probably better, and bring better defense. Someone can play the 3 and D role better than Harden if thats all you're gonna ask him to do.

This is for the guys saying they wouldn't have to change their identity because their spacing would be better. Your basically getting half of what Harden can potentially give you offensively, a completely watered down Harden in the role he would be playing wh taking a monstrous hit on defense.

With Miami we are talking about an extreme situation on both sides. They were a very poor fitting team (rebounding, size/paint presence, overlapping skills) with extreme talent. So anyone can really use them to prove their point on either side because of the extremes.

In this situation you are removing a role playing defender on a great defensive team (all around) with a top 10 player and MVP candidate. They wouldn't be creating any major flaws like Miami had by adding harden, (they still have defense especially in gasol) but would add something they actually do lack (playmaking on the perimeter). I don't see a serious flaw created like Miami had, but I do see a serious gain in talent.

Chronz
02-05-2015, 03:43 PM
But the question we have to ask ourselves, is that one guy the entirety of their identity?

If you take away Tony Allen do they know longer have that grit? That toughness? Would Conley, ZBo, and Marc no longer be gritty or tough?

You (and by you I don't necessarily mean you) seem to think one player completely defines the team. If you take Allen away from the Grizzlies they fall apart. If you take Klay away from the Warriors their defense falls apart. To a lesser extent if you take Splitter away from the Spurs they fall apart.

Splitter has never played more than 24 MPG. The last 2 seasons he's at 20 MPG. He's currently 10th on the Spurs in MPG. I mean, are you saying that the Spurs would no longer be a great team if they had Al Jefferson instead of Tiago Splitter? That they wouldn't have won their last 2 titles?

Splitter cost them dearly in the 2013 Finals. His inability to punish Miami for going small was why he saw so little action.

Tony_Starks
02-05-2015, 04:00 PM
That's really a tough question. For me it would boil down to how much Harden is willing to commit to defense. He has shown flashes of actually being a decent defender when he really concentrates on it. If they could get him to buy in even at the expense of his scoring then yeah no doubt I'd take him.

If its going to be the somtimey D that I see now then no thanks, I'd stick with Tony. He's a guy that I can throw his stat sheet out of the window and still know exactly what I'm going to get every game.

Thats part of the problem.

Hard nose defense and hustle every minute he's on the floor is a problem?

Goose17
02-05-2015, 04:02 PM
I feel like you're saying sort of both scenarios are possible. Not relating to Harden/Allen specifically, but more so, more individual talent doesn't always equal a better fit (Gay vs Prince as an example) which seems fair/reasonable. It's a case by case basis

Yes. I agree with this^ makes sense.


Out of interest since Memphis fans are posting here. How would swapping Cousins and Gasol impact both teams?

If people think that makes Memphis worse then by Valades theory that makes Gasol the better player. But if they think Sacramento would be worse then by Valades theory that makes Cousins the better player.

The swapping thing isn't a fair way of measuring individual talent imo. There's way more to take into consideration. It's also complete speculation. There's no way of actually knowing for sure, so what does it prove?

valade16
02-05-2015, 04:13 PM
Yes. I agree with this^ makes sense.

Out of interest since Memphis fans are posting here. How would swapping Cousins and Gasol impact both teams?

If people think that makes Memphis worse then by Valades theory that makes Gasol the better player. But if they think Sacramento would be worse then by Valades theory that makes Cousins the better player.

The swapping thing isn't a fair way of measuring individual talent imo. There's way more to take into consideration. It's also complete speculation. There's no way of actually knowing for sure, so what does it prove?

First, it's not my theory. I don't think it's an absolute. As I've said (although you've admitted to Chronz you don't actually read a lot of the thread so it's unsuprising you may have missed it), at a certain point the talent disparity becomes so large fit is irrelevant.

Cousins to Marc isn't that large a talent disparity at all. You could easily argue either as the best Center in the NBA.

If it were swap Cousins with... Robin Lopez we're talking a slightly different animal.

Chronz
02-05-2015, 04:14 PM
With Miami we are talking about an extreme situation on both sides. They were a very poor fitting team (rebounding, size/paint presence, overlapping skills) with extreme talent. So anyone can really use them to prove their point on either side because of the extremes.

In this situation you are removing a role playing defender on a great defensive team (all around) with a top 10 player and MVP candidate. They wouldn't be creating any major flaws like Miami had by adding harden, (they still have defense especially in gasol) but would add something they actually do lack (playmaking on the perimeter). I don't see a serious flaw created like Miami had, but I do see a serious gain in talent.

Its as if he thinks 3 players make up an entire team.

Goose17
02-05-2015, 04:22 PM
First, it's not my theory. I don't think it's an absolute. As I've said (although you've admitted to Chronz you don't actually read a lot of the thread so it's unsuprising you may have missed it), at a certain point the talent disparity becomes so large fit is irrelevant.

Cousins to Marc isn't that large a talent disparity at all. You could easily argue either as the best Center in the NBA.

If it were swap Cousins with... Robin Lopez we're talking a slightly different animal.

The difference in talent between Klay and Harden isn't that big either.

Your entire post was essentially "Harden on Warriors wouldn't make them drop that many games if any. Klay on Houston would. Harden is better"

As if its that ****ing simple. Yes Harden is better but that is simply a terrible way at evaluating individual talent.

IversonIsKrazy
02-05-2015, 04:23 PM
Lol this thread is ********. Obviously Harden. I personally think Allen isn't even a great fit. I mean think abt it, their offense is giving the ball down low, they need to spread the floor with shooters, Allen is probably the worse possible fit offensively in that system, dude bricks 15 footers.

Goose17
02-05-2015, 04:34 PM
Valade I'm assuming you would rather have Monta Ellis paired up with Lillard instead of Wes? Westbrook instead of Lillard?

You would rather have a Westbrook - Ellis backcourt instead of Lillard-Mathews, yes?


You would be happy to have Westbrook - Ellis - Melo - Love - Bosh. They would work well together?


How about an Iverson - Kobe back court?

Chronz
02-05-2015, 04:39 PM
Hard nose defense and hustle every minute he's on the floor is a problem?
If thats all you're getting to the point where he forces you to play 4 on 5 on the other end and can literally count on very little measurable production is. Thats why as they've gotten better, his role has been reduced. Its not like hes an integral piece either, he doesn't even get starting minutes. You can hide a players inadequacies defensively, you cant prevent the opposing team from outright ignoring a non-threat. Thats before we even get to Harden's defensive improvement.

There will never be a lockdown type of guy who cant shoot, that will outweigh the impact of a James Harden.

valade16
02-05-2015, 04:40 PM
The difference in talent between Klay and Harden isn't that big either.

Your entire post was essentially "Harden on Warriors wouldn't make them drop that many games if any. Klay on Houston would. Harden is better"

As if its that ****ing simple. Yes Harden is better but that is simply a terrible way at evaluating individual talent.

1st Bolded: You're correct. Harden and Klay are a lot closer in talent than Harden and Tony Allen. Which makes the Griz scenario even more preposterous. There is a legitimate debate about whether Harden or Klay makes the Warriors better. There should be no debate about Harden or Allen. Heck, the one thing the Grizzlies have lacked is playmaking and shooting from their wings.

2nd Bolded: Again, it is not a terrible way to compare talent when someone says they would take Klay because he'd be a better fit as a #2 option. How does showing that Harden could do equally well (or better) in that scenario not disprove that statement?

Goose17
02-05-2015, 04:42 PM
2nd Bolded: Again, it is not a terrible way to compare talent when someone says they would take Klay because he'd be a better fit as a #2 option. How does showing that Harden could do equally well (or better) in that scenario not disprove that statement?

How did you show that Harden would do equally as well? How can you? It's complete speculation. It makes no sense, you can't actually prove it.

Chronz
02-05-2015, 04:43 PM
Something tells me if Miami had a prime Kurt Thomas they would have been better off than the 2010-2014 Chris Bosh, who did nothing but shoot jumpers off kickouts. Kurt Thomas can do that, probably better, and bring better defense. Someone can play the 3 and D role better than Harden if thats all you're gonna ask him to do.
KT cant shoot or put it on the floor like Bosh, that dual threat may not manifest itself in Bosh's own individual production, but that threat is what opens up the floor for his teammates.

Now if you tell me a guy like Horace Grant, then I would agree. Hes that much of a defensive upgrade and enough of an individual producer to make it an argument.

BTW, have you noticed how far off the deep end Bosh's efficiency has been. This is literally the worst hes played on both ends since his rookie years. Is he out of his prime or simply in a bad situation. Could you think of a situation where he could return to his efficient self without sacrificing his own production?


This is for the guys saying they wouldn't have to change their identity because their spacing would be better. Your basically getting half of what Harden can potentially give you offensively, a completely watered down Harden in the role he would be playing wh taking a monstrous hit on defense.
Not buying these fake measures (half lol).

valade16
02-05-2015, 04:44 PM
Valade I'm assuming you would rather have Monta Ellis paired up with Lillard instead of Wes? Westbrook instead of Lillard?

You would rather have a Westbrook - Ellis backcourt instead of Lillard-Mathews, yes?

You would be happy to have Westbrook - Ellis - Melo - Love - Bosh. They would work well together?

First, the assumption is that Ellis flat out better than Wes. I do not agree. I think Wes is about equal in talent to Monta Ellis.

Second, I wouldn't take Westbrook - Ellis because of fit. I would however take Westbrook - Wes because of talent. Westbrook is better than Lillard. If we traded I would be ecstatic.

Third, if the team were Westy - Harden - Melo - Love - Bosh I think they would win the Championship yes.

Chronz
02-05-2015, 04:44 PM
Lol this thread is ********. Obviously Harden. I personally think Allen isn't even a great fit. I mean think abt it, their offense is giving the ball down low, they need to spread the floor with shooters, Allen is probably the worse possible fit offensively in that system, dude bricks 15 footers.

Bingo, its why they have reduced his role as the team has improved. Hes not as vital as people pretend. Hes a great role player to have in certain situations, thats never going to offset the advantage that having Harden would have.

And honestly, I dont think he would take a backseat here, its so clear that Z-Bo needs a reduced role so he could focus more on crashing the boards (that Harden's penetration would provide).

valade16
02-05-2015, 04:47 PM
How did you show that Harden would do equally as well? How can you? It's complete speculation. It makes no sense, you can't actually prove it.

Obviously I can't show definitively, this is a hypothetical after all. But I showed compelling reasons why he could.

1). He played second fiddle to both KD and Westy in OKC and excelled

2). He doesn't shoot the ball very much for a #1 option (and prior to this year no more than Klay) so he wouldn't be taking a ton of shots away from Curry

3). Curry and Klay are within 1 PPG of each other, so Harden could easily be a 1B to Curry's 1A.

4). Harden is a good 3PT Shooter who could easily play off Curry and more importantly, allow Curry to play off Harden. One of the reasons Klay gets so many wide open shots is because teams are forced to double, collapse and shade on Curry. Imagine if you had to do that to 2 players?

So again, these are all completely legitimate reasons why the idea that Harden wouldn't be able to fit are misguided.

Goose17
02-05-2015, 04:47 PM
Second, I wouldn't take Westbrook - Ellis because of fit.


Excuse me? But they're the better players, are they not?

valade16
02-05-2015, 04:49 PM
Excuse me? But they're the better players, are they not?

Is Monta Ellis a better player than Wesley?

Wesley is far and away the better defender. Wesley is far and away the better 3PT shooter.

Monta can score more, but not at a higher rate than Wes. He can drive it to the hole better.

Simply put: I don't buy your premise Monta is better than Wesley.

Goose17
02-05-2015, 04:55 PM
1). He played second fiddle to both KD and Westy in OKC and excelled


I don't think his ego would allow him to play second fiddle to Steph when he's currently the only player competing with him for the MVP.




2). He doesn't shoot the ball very much for a #1 option (and prior to this year no more than Klay) so he wouldn't be taking a ton of shots away from Curry


Sorry? There are only 5 players that take more field goals attempt per game. Lebron, Aldridge, Melo, Kobe and Westbrook. Klay is 18th in FGA/PG and Curry is 17th. Harden is 6th.

Hardens USG% is also much higher. Kobe, Wade, Cousins, Melo, Lebron and Rose are the only people higher.




3). Curry and Klay are within 1 PPG of each other, so Harden could easily be a 1B to Curry's 1A.


Again I don't think his ego would let him, but it's not impossible.




4). Harden is a good 3PT Shooter who could easily play off Curry and more importantly, allow Curry to play off Harden. One of the reasons Klay gets so many wide open shots is because teams are forced to double, collapse and shade on Curry. Imagine if you had to do that to 2 players?


I agree with Curry being able to play off Harden as a big positive.


I'm not arguing Curry and Harden is a more talented back court. I'm arguing that Harden doesn't fit within the Dubs current system, and they would have to change a lot to make it work, even then it's not guaranteed to work. Klay is the better fit for this system.

Goose17
02-05-2015, 04:56 PM
Is Monta Ellis a better player than Wesley?

Wesley is far and away the better defender. Wesley is far and away the better 3PT shooter.

Monta can score more, but not at a higher rate than Wes. He can drive it to the hole better.

Simply put: I don't buy your premise Monta is better than Wesley.

Personally I don't think he is. But I have a feeling the "majority" would disagree with us (although I've never been one for majority opinion, great minds don't think alike, they think differently. That's why your poll ain't **** to me ;) )

Simply put I think most people would consider Ellis more talented (they would be wrong, but I think it's the perspective of the majority)

Chronz
02-05-2015, 05:02 PM
Heres the thing about the talent disparity argument.

You guys mention Monta vs Wes when one has a higher usage going for him and the other has elite efficiency going for him. Its easy to see why a team would need one over the other, what makes Harden-Klay so different is that Harden is BOTH more prolific AND more efficient. And in a lesser role, we've already seen his efficiency skyrocket to a degree we've never seen from Klay in ANY role over the years.

Tony_Starks
02-05-2015, 05:16 PM
Hard nose defense and hustle every minute he's on the floor is a problem?
If thats all you're getting to the point where he forces you to play 4 on 5 on the other end and can literally count on very little measurable production is. Thats why as they've gotten better, his role has been reduced. Its not like hes an integral piece either, he doesn't even get starting minutes. You can hide a players inadequacies defensively, you cant prevent the opposing team from outright ignoring a non-threat. Thats before we even get to Harden's defensive improvement.

There will never be a lockdown type of guy who cant shoot, that will outweigh the impact of a James Harden.

You're not factoring in playoff production. Allen is extremely reliable and experienced come playoff time while the refs are notorious for not falling for Hardens antics in the playoffs. You say they're playing 4 on 5 offensively with Tony but that's no counting the deflections and steals he gets that result in easy buckets. Plus the occasional open J. I'll glady take that every night if I'm Memphis over the hope of Harden getting hot and not getting abused on D.....

valade16
02-05-2015, 05:19 PM
I don't think his ego would allow him to play second fiddle to Steph when he's currently the only player competing with him for the MVP.

Sorry? There are only 5 players that take more field goals attempt per game. Lebron, Aldridge, Melo, Kobe and Westbrook. Klay is 18th in FGA/PG and Curry is 17th. Harden is 6th.

Hardens USG% is also much higher. Kobe, Wade, Cousins, Melo, Lebron and Rose are the only people higher.

Again I don't think his ego would let him, but it's not impossible.

I agree with Curry being able to play off Harden as a big positive.

I'm not arguing Curry and Harden is a more talented back court. I'm arguing that Harden doesn't fit within the Dubs current system, and they would have to change a lot to make it work, even then it's not guaranteed to work. Klay is the better fit for this system.

In regards to the shot attempts I was talking about the last 2 years when he took 16.5 and 17.1. Those are right around where Klay is.

And his USG the last 2 years was 29 and 27.

I also don't think he'd have an ego to compete with Steph as much as people think. When he was brought in to Houston it was to be a 1A 1B with Howard. The only reason it's not is because people incorrectly assumed Howard would return to his Orlando days. And while he has been really good there, he hasn't quite been that good.

Heck the biggest factor down the stretch for Houston in the Portland series was because of Howard, not Harden.

Goose17
02-05-2015, 05:27 PM
what makes Harden-Klay so different is that Harden is BOTH more prolific AND more efficient. And in a lesser role, we've already seen his efficiency skyrocket to a degree we've never seen from Klay in ANY role over the years.

I hope you don't mean in terms of scoring? Klay has a better TS% and Harden may get more buckets but that's only due to playing more minutes and getting to the free throw line more.

When talking about scoring, their per 36 numbers are pretty much the same.

Thompson; 25 PPG, 48% FG, 44% 3PT, 86% FT
Harden; 27 PPG, 45% FG, 39% 3PT, 88% FT

Goose17
02-05-2015, 05:31 PM
In regards to the shot attempts I was talking about the last 2 years when he took 16.5 and 17.1. Those are right around where Klay is.

And his USG the last 2 years was 29 and 27.

I also don't think he'd have an ego to compete with Steph as much as people think. When he was brought in to Houston it was to be a 1A 1B with Howard. The only reason it's not is because people incorrectly assumed Howard would return to his Orlando days. And while he has been really good there, he hasn't quite been that good.

Heck the biggest factor down the stretch for Houston in the Portland series was because of Howard, not Harden.

The ego thing is so subjective, I believe it would play into it, you don't. There's no right or wrong there really and no way of knowing.

And as for FGA, we're talking about right now. Not Harden from two years ago. Same argument you (we) were using against Tre, we were talking about the best shooter right now, including stats from two years ago seems... odd. They are who they are now. I mean Klay from two years ago isn't even comparable to Wes Mathews never mind Harden.

Curious, Lillard and Harden. Good fit or nah?

Chronz
02-05-2015, 05:32 PM
You're not factoring in playoff production. Allen is extremely reliable and experienced come playoff time while the refs are notorious for not falling for Hardens antics in the playoffs. You say they're playing 4 on 5 offensively with Tony but that's no counting the deflections and steals he gets that result in easy buckets. Plus the occasional open J. I'll glady take that every night if I'm Memphis over the hope of Harden getting hot and not getting abused on D.....

Agree to disagree, people overrate the change in refs (for his career, Harden actually has a higher ft draw rate in the playoffs than he does in the RS), its his shot making that has fallen off come playoffs, most likely due to facing better defenses.

But good talk guys, havent been able to kill this much time before pregaming in a long time. Might be late now tho.

Chronz
02-05-2015, 05:34 PM
I hope you don't mean in terms of scoring? Klay has a better TS% and Harden may get more buckets but that's only due to playing more minutes and getting to the free throw line more.

When talking about scoring, their per 36 numbers are pretty much the same.

Thompson; 25 PPG, 48% FG, 44% 3PT, 86% FT
Harden; 27 PPG, 45% FG, 39% 3PT, 88% FT

I mean in terms of per possession efficiency. The single most important barometer for individual offensive efficiency.

valade16
02-05-2015, 05:39 PM
The ego thing is so subjective, I believe it would play into it, you don't. There's no right or wrong there really and no way of knowing.

And as for FGA, we're talking about right now. Not Harden from two years ago. Same argument you (we) were using against Tre, we were talking about the best shooter right now, including stats from two years ago seems... odd. They are who they are now. I mean Klay from two years ago isn't even comparable to Wes Mathews never mind Harden.

Curious, Lillard and Harden. Good fit or nah?

I wasn't really talking about 2 years ago, mainly just last year when he took 16.5 shots. The reason he's taking more shots this year is in part because Howard was hurt so he started taking more to compensate for the lack of scoring.

to reword the question, what if Portland traded Wesley Matthews for James Harden? As a Portland fan I would love that. Lillard - Harden would be great offensively. Lillard can play off ball (we oftentimes have him at SG next to Steve Blake) and would be a devastating kickout for Harden's drives (as would LMA).

Where we would suffer a lot is defense. Wes usually guards the other teams best player although recently Lillard has stepped his defensive game up. But yeah, I would still do the trade.

Goose17
02-05-2015, 05:39 PM
I mean in terms of per possession efficiency. The single most important barometer for individual offensive efficiency.

Can you elaborate?

Saddletramp
02-05-2015, 06:12 PM
2). He doesn't shoot the ball very much for a #1 option (and prior to this year no more than Klay) so he wouldn't be taking a ton of shots away from Curry

3). Curry and Klay are within 1 PPG of each other, so Harden could easily be a 1B to Curry's 1A.



There are only 5 players that take more field goals attempt per game. Lebron, Aldridge, Melo, Kobe and Westbrook. Klay is 18th in FGA/PG and Curry is 17th. Harden is 6th.


Klay has a better TS% and Harden may get more buckets but that's only due to playing more minutes and getting to the free throw line more.

Harden has played 1781 minutes this season, Klay has played 1490 minutes. Harden has taken 896 shots for about one shot for just under 1.99 minutes played to Klay's 773 shots for about one shot for just under 1.93 minutes played.

Harden plays more minutes because GS has the better team and rests their starters more. He's also played 3 more games this year than Klay. So I'm pretty sure Harden and Steph could co-exist.

Look, Morey calls Menphis and says "Harden for Allen, straight up", Memphis craps their pants and immediately does it assuming Morey is about to get fired and they'd need to act super quick and not ask questions. Memphis calls Morey for the same trade and Morey laughs before hanging up and doesn't stop laughing for days. GS calls Morey about Klay straight up for Harden and Morey declines rather quickly. Morey calls GS with the same deal and they either take awhile to consider it or accept it immediately.

All of this Harden or Klay stuff is dumb and this Harden or Allen stuff is just ****ing absurd. Fit matters, to a point. Like Chronz has said, I probably wouldn't trade Klay for Harden if I'm GS but I definitely would never trade Harden for either of those guys.

Verbal Christ
02-05-2015, 07:41 PM
Harden would turn the Grizz into a top 3 offensive team immediately and title favorite absurd anyone even doubts that

be objective and put personal narratives aside good grief

Blitzbolt
02-05-2015, 11:27 PM
Tony Allen is best defender in NBA and since kid retire he has been the smartest.. But he is useless agains the Spurs..the other teams need to have a number one in order for Tony Allen to be a weapon (harden,dubs,Ellis,cp3,KD ect..he could slow down anyone but play him agains the hawks,Spurs or teams with no real superstar and that move the ball then he sucks and has to be bench.

KnicksorBust
02-06-2015, 12:09 PM
How many perimeter players does Harden have to beat easily in these votes before these stop?

Goose17
02-06-2015, 12:21 PM
How many perimeter players does Harden have to beat easily in these votes before these stop?

I would say at least another 4.

Butler, DeRozan, Wade and Iguodala. Which thread should I start first?

KnicksorBust
02-06-2015, 12:24 PM
I would say at least another 4.

Butler, DeRozan, Wade and Iguodala. Which thread should I start first?

:laugh: Butler would give him the toughest challenge but he'd sweep them as well.