Ridiculously bad shot-blocker and a mediocre/bellow average defender. Inapt defending the low post, especially versus bigger centres, good transition defender, acceptable positional help defender - unfortunately he tempers these traits with an awful foul rate.
I'm at loss how can anyone consider Moore a shot-blocker. He's one of the worst 7ft shot-blockers in the entire history of the league. It's amazing how these myths are created: the guy is a 7ft who can run and leap, and plays with lots of energy and hustle, so people just assume he can bock shots and defend, because he fills the stereotype. It doesn't work like that though. He's somewhat of a "fake hustler" (to borrow JVG's expression), because he doesn't translate the effort to an impact on the game.
He's a decent 4th big, good 5th big.
a good defender is not always a good shot blocker. and a good shot blocker is not always a good defender. take chris andersen for example. one would struggle to call him a good defender.
have you ever seen a guy come to boston and improve his defense? have you seriously been watching the guy play enough anytime recently to back up all this overstated analysis of his "acceptable position help defense"? better get over your bias against this guy, because he's a celtic now: you're going to have root for him being a "decent big" not against him.
I'm well aware that a good defender is not a good shot-blocker and vice-versa. I never stated that was the case, in fact I said the opposite many times, saying we didn't really needed a shot-blocker but someone who could defend and rebound. I was very opposed to signing Chris Andersen in the pre-season, precisely for those reasons.
The problem of Moore is that he's Chris Andersen without the rebounding and the shot-blocking.
Most importantly: I can root for guys who are flawed. If I wasn't able to do that, I would have stopped following the C's a long time ago, believe me.
I have no bias against Moore. I'm not 12 anymore to be that emotionally invested with basketball players. I've said multiple times it's better to sign Moore than nothing and I actually like him - and I somewhat appreciate players like Moore who, albeit not very talented, are hard-working guys who had to fight hard for everything they got in their career. That doesn't stop me from seeing the evident holes in his game. If people call Moore a shot-blocker or a rebounder, I'll say they're wrong.
Unlike many here, I don't chance my opinion on a player because he signs with the C's (or because he leaves the C's). Sorry to break this for you, but the skill-set of a player doesn't change just because he rents a house in Boston. That is getting silly over here btw: I've already been accused of having a bias against POB for predicting he wouldn't end the season here due to his lack of NBA talent, a bias against Tony Allen for saying he's incredibly unreliable and inconsistent, a bias against Powe for saying he's a blackhole on offence who was far from being starting material, a bias against Rondo for saying his jumper wasn't "decent" or "just bellow average" but horrid, etc. etc. People need to lighten up and stop seeing any criticism of a Boston player like an expression of bias. If Moore had signed with the Lakers people would see him as another scrub who would barely be an improvement over Josh Powell and rightly so. He isn't better just because he signed here.
If there was an applause emoticon, Cordobes, I'd deliver it. Excellent assessment that's correct on all counts. The hyperbole on this board has reached hysterical levels.
Moore's an improvement over O'Blount. Who wouldn't be? But he's not Bill Russell, and he's not part of some grand Danny Ainge master plan. He's part of a GM trying to operate with a skin-tight budget.
Amusing how this board has evolved over the past year ...
I'm in the middle on this particluar topic.
Maybe getting Marbury and Moore wasn't part of Danny's grand master plan, but he clearly felt like players would come available during the season.
the problem was that it turns out that not that many did in fact become available. and i do give him kudos for what seems to be finding out that Moore would be bought out to at the very least upgrade over what we had.
plus, the players available in the off-season were largely underwhelming. In fact, the only player that i really lament not having is Posey. and that, for me, is the crux of my own criticism with Danny's moves up till now.
I also would have preferred other options to Moore (in terms of the plan to solidify the bench during the season) - clearly i am not too confident in the move as I started the thread. Horry and Smith are two players i would have targeted ahead of Moore to fill PJs role.
but i also acknowledge that Moore could work out. We're just going to have to see how he does.
maybe it's a little presumptuous of me, but i tend to look at every move in terms of how it will help us against the Cavs. and i worry about the matchup of Moore and Varejao.
anyway, I'm trying to keep an open mind about this whole thing.
Topic: Moore: good defender and shot blocker? (Read 51720 times)