What do you guys think Bynum could do with starters' minutes?
Printable View
What do you guys think Bynum could do with starters' minutes?
Start.
You have a gift, my friend.
:green balloon:
Quote:
Clark (Detroit): If Will Bynum continues this type of play the entire season, what size contract do you see him getting next year?
Langlois: That’s the $64,000 question – times 100, perhaps. There’s no question that had the Pistons or anyone signed Will Bynum last summer to a mid-level exception contract, they’d be pleased with the production they’re getting from him for that price. He’ll be 27 next season in the first year of a new contract. Will some team offer him the full MLE as a restricted free agent? Maybe. Will one team that desperately needs the playmaking ability off the dribble and high energy he brings offer even more? With so many attractive free agents hitting the market next summer, I’m not sure that can happen. Regardless, the Pistons will have the right to match any offers Will might get and unless there’s a “poison pill” clause in there, I think you’ll see Joe Dumars do what it takes to retain him.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/rankings?pos=1
bynum is a top 4 PG so far this year.
And the majority of us think Hollinger is a fucking moron, so that's probably not something to post in a positive thread on Bynum.
Glenn asked what Bynum could do with starter's minutes and the answer is...
A lot fucking less than he's doing now.
He's suited to being an energy guy off the bench and if you take him out of that clearly defined role you ruin his effectiveness.
But hey, don't let common sense ruin your idea. Run with it.
Yep, with Acie Law #3 and Jerryd Bayless #5. Hollinger sure thinks there are some productive back-up pgs in this league.Quote:
Originally Posted by Koolaid
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pharaoh-lois
I bet Chris Paul would be great off the bench, too.
He would provide ENERGY!!
WTF did you smoke today GD?
You just compared Bynum to Chris fucking Paul!
Calm down, chill out and come back to reality.
Bynum is what he is - a great spark plug off the bench.
Don't fuck with that.
Don't pretend he's something he can never be.
Dude is not and never will be a viable starting option in the NBA.
The comparison was designed to get you to take the bait, and you did, so thank you. Now, on to the point, why does a guy that plays with energy (oh, who also happens to be very good) have to come off the bench? That shit really bothers me. How would anybody ever know how good guys like Paul (relax) might be if they are only relegated to being a "sparkplug"? Fuck being a "sparkplug", if you can play, you can play. The whole premise that Bynum is only a bench energy guy is bogus (all apologies to Mr. Langlois). My premise is, the guy is damn good and all he does is play well when he gets PT, why wouldn't you want more of that? I can buy that the organization is trying to protect Stuckey's confidence or maybe even trying to "hide" Bynum so he doesn't get a big offer this summer, but let's just drop this phony "he's just an energy guy" company line.
how is bynum only an energy player? when he's gotten over 30 minutes in a game did his game drop off? Normally it looks more like the exact opposite of that, he doesn't even find his rythym until the 4th quarter. When Bynum first comes off the bench he has had next to no impact what so ever.
Actually Stuckey looks like he might be that sparkplug guy. He starts off the game as an offensive threat, then by the 3rd quarter he's a useless black hole.
A "minimum of 100 minutes" filter would've fixed that. Someone should teach him the value of appropriate sample size. "John, just because you are a cunt doesn't mean everyone is a cunt..."Quote:
Originally Posted by yargs
See what I'm talking about P? This is what Glan wants people to think of him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Glan
The bait frames the discussion and set up the point that I was about to make. It put a spotlight on the misperception that little guys that play fast, and play well, don't need to be labeled "energy guys off the bench" by default.
Last 2 seasons the pistons are 2-5 in games bynum's played 29+ minutes. It's a meaningless sample but I tend to believe it's not a good idea to play a midget big minutes in a league dominated by giants.Quote:
Originally Posted by Koolaid
I think it's good practice to limit his minutes (and exposure to opposing offensives taking advantage of his diminutive stature) and to continue to expose his incredible quickness to tiring legs in the second half.
So would you have Isiah Thomas coming off the bench? How about a prime AI? They both were the same size and same style of play as Bynum. The Pistons started a horribly undersized big guy named Ben Wallace for a long time too, and he played a position where size matters way more then it does for a PG. I don't think anyone regrets that.Quote:
Originally Posted by yargs
You can't factor things around a player's size like that. Size is a plus, without question, but there's alot of other factors that mean just as much when determining a player's role. When you're talking about PGs things like speed, offensive awareness, passing skill and shooting mean way more then size. Even with that in mind, Bynum doesn't play like a midget. This season he has shown that he can rebound very good for a PG, and i'm yet to see anyone take advantage of him in the post either.
Just a random thought, but Koolaid seems almost like a different poster than the Koolaid of 2-3 years ago. I'm really enjoying reading your opinions, K, keep 'em coming.
I'm the same asshole I always was.Quote:
Originally Posted by Glan
There wasn't shit to talk about back then because the team was damn near perfect. Now is the first time when strategies and roles can be discussed since Michael Curry was the starting SF.
To be perfectly honest the names isiah thomas nor allen iverson ever came to mind when watching will bynum, 2 first-ballot hall of famers and, in the case of zeke, one of the top 5 pg's to ever play the game.Quote:
Originally Posted by Koolaid
I see your argument, they are both small players and could (and did) lead to potential mismatches on the defensive end but I don't really have a problem with bynum's ability to pressure the ball. My problem with bynum's size has to do with his offensive game, believe it or not, and playing big minutes along side Gordon.
I like bynum and he's proven to be a very nice component to this team (and much better than I thought he could ever be) but he's much better as a back-up player at this time. Right now he's still a severely undersized shoot-first player that can't really hit a jump shot and doesn't see the floor very well. He's almost unguardable off the dribble and is exciting as hell to watch but eventually guys that small are going to have problems finishing at the rim when that's the only way they make shots. The more he plays the more he'll get exposed on both ends of the floor.
And yes, you absolutely have to factor the size of your point guard when your current shooting guard is only a few inches taller than said point guard. Ben Gordon really only works if you have a guy big enough to play with him that can cover the opponents big guard.
And what's so bad about having a guy that talented come off the bench? Teams would kill for that kind of production out of their back-up guard.
Still, bynum is a nice problem to have.
i have to agree Bynum is too one-dimensional to be anything more than a great off-the bench scorer
He's one-dimensionally leading the team in APG (in limited minutes) is basically tied with Gordon for the team lead in 3FG% and would probably would be near the top in several other statistical categories if he got extended minutes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Asberry
I'm too lazy to look it up, but I bet he ranks pretty well in points in the paint per minute, too.
He's also one of the fastest guys in the league with the ball in his hands.
Maybe that one dimension is just "good".
You're very welcome.Quote:
Originally Posted by Glan
And while I'm certain you would love for me to explain my position on this subject to you and type a fucking essay I'll refrain.
Why?
Because after damn near 10 years of posting with you I do not believe that you actually want Bynum to start. I believe you are taking that position in order to stimulate a debate and I believe I have told you what I think of that shit.
If you REALLY believe Bynum should start then congrats you're a dickhead.
If you're actually only taking that side of the debate to stimulate discussion then congrats, I still think you're a dickhead.
Peace, GD.
And remember to puff, puff, pass that shit
The discussion started by wondering what he could do with starters minutes and it degraded when (most) everyone decided to go with the same old tired "he's a energy bench guy" shit. Well, I think he's more than that. I don't care if he starts or not, he's a player and he deserves to play.
When someone says "energy guy" what do you think of?
I'm not comparing Bynum to Zeke in terms of accomplishments, but if you can't see that Bynum's game is clearly modeled after Isiah's then you must've not seen much of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by yargs
This is Bynum:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flQ-_...eature=related
This is Thomas:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADqfHqrf8QA
You don't see similarities there? Not to mention Bynum coming back in the coming in the game after getting badly eye gouged and playing a huge role in sealing the win against Orlando, or clenching the playoffs by setting a franchise record last year, which were both very Isiah like as well.
I'm not saying he's as good as Isiah though. Isiah had a better jumper, better court vision and better handles. I'm just saying they play a very similar game, and if Isiah can be a top 5 PG of all-time being the same size and playing the same then I don't see how Bynum's size somehow relegates him as a bench player as if him being a less effective Isiah is a bad thing.
I'm not buying the Ben Gordon size thing either, mainly because I'm a pistons fan. I don't know how old y'all are, but do you remember this backcourt?
Isiah Thomas - 6'0"
Joe Dumars - 6'3"
Now check this out...
Will Bynum - 6'0"
Ben Gordon - 6'3"
Crazy ain't it? Now if by chance Will and Ben are getting torched in size mismatches they'd have a luxury Joe and Zeke didn't have. They could bring in Stuck/Rip to contest those shots instead of a 6'2" Vinnie Johnson.
I'd love to have Kobe, CP3, Bron and DHoward on the bench too. It's good to have talented guys on the bench, but it's even better to have them on the court. When you have a lesser player playing in front of him it's pretty dumb to have your best distributor on the bench trying to come in the game to cold shooters.Quote:
And what's so bad about having a guy that talented come off the bench? Teams would kill for that kind of production out of their back-up guard.
Lindsey Hunter, Ronald Dupree, Jon Barry and the likeQuote:
Originally Posted by Pharaoh
Well, see GD there's your problem.
When I call Bynum an energy guy I think damn near 6th Man of The Year (though more likely 7th or 8th man in the rotation).
You think of end of bench types.
Big difference there, wouldn't you agree?
And FWIW:
IF you consider Stuckey and Bynum to be equal I'd start Stuckey every single time.
Bynum IS the spark this team needs off the bench. He plays exceptionally well in that role. I think the team is better with him in that role.
If you disagree and think this team would be better with Stuckey coming off the bench then I'm sorry I just can't agree with that. If we still had Chauncey and Rip? Sure, but not now.
I like how because we disagree, you are able to identify "my problem" for me, lol. Jon Barry is only my favorite Piston ever. Lindsey Hunter made a career out of being an "energetic spark plug off the bench". Dupree stole $ for years being a bench energy guy. Point is, there are a lot of different types of bench energy guys, and it's my opinion that Bynum is above that. And yes, I've been saying for years that the ideal role for Stuckey is as a 6th man backing up both guard positions, because we've got better options to start, especially with Gordon here, Bynum's emergence, and with Rip healthy.
"My problem" is that I'm a Bynum fan, and not a fan of "the Stuckey mandate" it would appear.
Yeah, it's great, isn't it? After all these years I still have a purpose.Quote:
Originally Posted by Glan
Yes, there are. Out of the ones you mentioned I'd put Bynum in the Jon Barry side of the ledger.Quote:
Originally Posted by Glan
Well, I don't think I've questioned your love of Bynum. I've simply questioned the desire some people have to change his role on the team.Quote:
Originally Posted by Glan
I would have whole-heartedly agreed when Chauncey and Rip were here. Not now. Stuckey starts for defensive purposes and because the kid would really struggle coming off the bench now.Quote:
And yes, I've been saying for years that the ideal role for Stuckey is as a 6th man backing up both guard positions, because we've got better options to start, especially with Gordon here, Bynum's emergence, and with Rip healthy.
Bynum and Ben Gordon do not struggle coming off the bench. Bynum literally thrives in that role. He kicks fucking ass. And some people think he performs so well IN THAT ROLE that they wanna change his role!
I don't understand that.
I'm a fan of both players and hope that Gordon, Stuckey, Bynum is our backcourt for years to come, with maybe a defensive minded 6'5" guard on the roster for certain match-ups.Quote:
Originally Posted by Glan
Rip? I'd be happy if they traded him tomorrow for a big man like Brand.
The team is better when he in on the floor, so I want him on the floor more, what is so hard to understand about that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pharaoh
A sip of beer is good too, but why not pour a whole glass?
Because if you leave it out there too long it gets warm and tastes like shit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Glan
Ben leads the team at %62 shooting. Why not have him take all the shots? Just because he's effective in his current role doesn't mean he'd be effective with an expanded role.
More isn't always better.
This sip IS amazing, but you know what happens when you drink too much?
You get drunk, can't speak properly and generally fuck things up.
Don't ruin a good thing in the hope that you MIGHT slightly upgrade something else.
I'm unfortunately old enough to have watched isiah play high school basketball here in chicago when I was a kid which is more of a statement of how old I am than anything. My dad taking me to his high school games is to blame for my piston-fandom (because I became a zeke fanatic)Quote:
Originally Posted by Koolaid
(and actually bynum was quite the hit here in chicago as well in high school but wasn't heavily recruited due to, you guessed it, his height)
I like Bynum. I like him a lot actually. In fact I like bynum infinitely more than I like stuckey. I'm coming close to hating how rodney stuckey plays basketball...he can't shoot, jump and makes poor decision after poor decision especially when it comes to shot selection. He thinks he's better than he actually is and shoots accordingly which hurts this team. I don't like guys whose main attribute is "getting to the free throw line" because it means they can't do the jobs themselves and need the refs to bail them out. Stackhouse was the same way. Hppefully he improves.
Anyway, I respect your comparison of bynum/gordon to zeke/dumars but, to me, it's a comparison in height only. Zeke was a much more talented and all-around point guard than bynum will ever be and I don't think you need me telling you this. You can't compare one of the best to ever play with a guy that's still learning how to survive in the NBA (but doing a great job learning how to survive).
And Gordon is an undersized, one-dimensional shooter that if his shot isn't falling he becomes almost useless. He's not a good defender.
Dumars was a threat on both-sides of the ball and probably made the hall of fame based on his defensive reputation more than anything else (although I think part of dumars' success during the "jordan rules" era had to do with how the pistons were coached and the swarming, help-defending ways of Dennis Rodman, still the greatest defender to ever play this game and a guy that needs to be in the hall of fame).
I like Bynum. I like his fight and how he's confident enough to close games. He is nearly unguardable off the dribble. But he is flawed, and some of these flaws are due to his size and how he scores points and how these flaws could be exposed in major minutes.
I like how bynum currently has a role that's been defined for him and he's excelling at it. I think the pistons need to focus on how to improve other areas before making changes to something that's currently working very well.
Yes, having Bynum go from 27 mpg to 32-34 mpg is analogous to having Ben Wallace shoot every shot.Quote:
Originally Posted by WTFchris
Solid!
The problem is that size in the 80's is not the same as size now. 6'8" centers were the norm back then. How many 6'10" SF's did you have in the 80's? You can't compare sizes in different era's.
It's like comparing RB's in different era's. Guys are bigger and faster in in both sports. Just look at how many RB's run for 1,000 yards for 10+ years. Who is going to do that today? Alexander, LT, LJ, Terrel Davis...all those guys looked like future hall of famers but they broke down. They can't take the punishment of bigger faster players. AD is a freak, but who knows if he'll survive long enough to do that either.
I like Bynum a lot too, but his size is a valid concern, mostly because he'd be paired with an undersized SG that doesn't play defense. I actually think the best long term fit might be Bynum and Stuckey starting and Gordon backing up both. The problem is Stuckey hasn't developed his shot (which is hampered by focusing on PG development). He's a below average starting SG right now (if he were playing there), but maybe if his role was defined as such he could improve his shot the way RIP did.
Yep...6'8" centers were the norm...in the 1950's.
Did you even watch basketball in Zeke's day? Where the fuck did you get that the centers were 6'8?"
Bob Lanier. Hakeem Olajuwon. Robert Parish. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. Mark Eaton. Brad Daugherty. Bill Laimbeer. Ralph Sampson. Tree Rollins. Jack Sikma. Patrick Ewing. Bill Cartright. Manute seven-foot fucking seven Bol.
The shortest dominant center of that era was moses malone, and he was a 6'10" 260-lb manchild.
There were more 7-foot starting Centers 20 years ago than there are now.
Uh, Larry Bird?Quote:
How many 6'10" SF's did you have in the 80's?
How many 6'9" PGs do we have today, by the way?
The average height for NBA players is 1.5" higher now than in the 80's. I looked it up and posted this in another thread a few months ago. Facts are facts. How many starting PG's are there under 6' these days and how many starting SG's are 6'3" these days? That's the question that matters. You can't start Bynum next to Gordon with both undersized, and you can't start Stuckey at SG with his current range. Start Bynum/Gordan and see how many times you give up 40 to a bigger SG like Kobe.
Starting PG's 6'3" or bigger:
Williams, Kidd, Westbrook, Davis, Billups, Calderon, Arenas, Rose, Ellis
That's a third of the league. So what do you do against those guys? Bynum can't guard SG's so you can't slide Gordon over. What do you do when you play a 6'6" SG and Gordon gets owned?
Size does matter I'm afraid.