Giddens carries Flash to the D-League Finals

[Fafnir]

That's not enough incentive for a player to be careful with his fouls, especially with good percentage of playing time he gets in garbage time.

Fouls are a bad thing, you can't just brush them off. When he has been given burn in non garbage time he has proven to be foul prone too.

Walker gave the Bulls 6 cheap free throws on St. Patrick's day. Its not a lack of incentive that makes Walker foul prone. It is a lack of proper experience/skill. I haven't seen enough to say which for him. He obviously has the physical tools.

[Fafnir]

As for quoting any Ainge analysis, it may seem like a copout to you but seeing as how Ainge has seen Giddens FAR more than you, I or anyone here and gets to see him up close on a regular basis I'd say his opinion and analysis carries a bit more weight than ours.

This assumes that Danny is telling the truth. There is certainly an incentive for him to lie when he proclaims his evaluations of players in public.

Depending on trade proposals, press spin about his first round pick, or in massaging players egos.

[BillfromBoston]

He's improved his shooting substantially over the court of the summer and this season, including his FT accuracy,  which was a must.

He's still subpar.

His ability to read the court and make plays for others is excellent - i'd equate it to Delonte West in terms of him being a 2-guard that can find cutters and kick-out options when he gets himself in trouble - also very adept at dump-off/drop-off passes to bigs when he draws defensive attention from help defenders.

I don't see this.

Out of curiosity, what are you guys basing your assessments on?  Have you watched his D-league games?  (This isn't a sarcastic question).

In my case, yes, about half a dozen of them.

what are his stats for the post season and regular season in the d league?

http://www.nba.com/dleague/playerfile/index.jsp?player=jr_giddens

Cordobes quoted for truth.

Two words for JR: Bench fodder.

And for the record, if Ainge fails to bring in a quality wing in the off-season who can defend and shoot from the perimeter, it'll be time to seriously ratchet up the discussion about his job performance. That failure would be inexcusable. Veteran wing help is a top off-season priority, along with an end to Danny's collection of 7-foot stiffs - oops, "low risk, no upside" bigs, and, again, a veteran point off the bench.

You and Cordobes must be identical twins...

poor mother....

BillFromBoston running out of basketball-related arguments and starting to use ad hominem attacks! Such a surprise!

You're just as predictable...

Dude, nobody is arguing against what you are seeing on the court - I certainly am not staing that Giddens is "good" at all the things you say he is "bad" at.

The point myself and some other posters are trying to make is that there is a difference at being deficient in certain elements of the game and being deficient to a degree where the player is incapable of playing meaningful minutes, period.

I actually agree with the bulk of what you've written from a scouting perspective on his base skills. But what I don't agree with is the level of inconsistency or deficiency you seem to be attributing to his game.

Giddens is not ready to play Tony Allen's 20 mpg for instance. But I do believe that if he got Glen Davis' opportunity from last season, he could contribute a similar amount of positive minutes and have his own moments of quality play.

That is enough for me to believe,  when coupled with his growth as a person and player over the past 2 years, that he is a prospect that has potential and COULD contribute something meaningful on the NBA if an opportunity arose.

I don't think he's a playoff team rotation player. I don't believe he's where he needs to be to stick in the league. But I like where he's at relative to his draft position, his past performance history, and my perception of his abilities now and in the future.

I think he has the chops to work at it, but will need the right situation to get his shot at showing what he can do and what he can improve on.

I really don't understand why that is so beyond your respect. You jump to way too many conclusions in your argument. You cut yourself off from the possibility of too many things and you start formulating arguments against counterpoints before you've spent 5 minutes trying to decipher exactly what the other persons point was.

You have a good head for evaluating players,  but you act like you have all the bases covered already.

Your own observation and analysis has flaws in it too - but you don't act like it. Yet, you constantly call for "proof" from others when all you throw out is observational analysis devoid of any historical context.

Let's say all your points are legit - what are the case histories that make Giddens' current flaws proof-positive of his likelihood to fail or succeed?

Show me something more than the fact you can watch a player and see him execute at an effective or ineffective level...how does his game grow or stagnate, why,  and what past experience feeds it?

[BillfromBoston]

I'll never understand why people argue about basketball without knowing what they're talking about. Simply stating "oh, but Ainge said X" and "Ainge said Y" is not a proper argument, from my point of view.

With all due respect, I'm a lot more inclined to believe Ainge's opinion than yours.  You've watched a bunch of games on a not-very-good video feed from nba.com.  He has direct access to the kid's practices, as well as game footage from now all the way back to his KU days - and probably even from high school, if he wanted it for some reason. 

With that said, I think there's a lot of difference between 'ready to contribute defensively in the NBA' and 'ready to be a defensive ace in the NBA'.  People bite on shotfakes in the NBA all the time, but it doesn't mean they aren't good defenders.  Tony Allen is notorious for it, yet he's universally regarded as at least a good defender, and most consider him very good.  With all of this said, though, I took Ainge's comments to mean that he could hold his own defensively in the NBA, but currently his offensive game isn't enough to get him minutes.  I don't necessarily think Danny was endorsing JR seeing the court in a meaningful game.

Sorry to break it for you, but there are three major problems with that kind of argument:
1) Sometimes Ainge lies. It's part of the job. For example, have you ever heard a manager in the draft night saying bad things about his pick?

2) Sometimes Ainge is wrong.

3) It's a formal fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority


I've presented my arguments in defence of my position, explicitly pointing out some of the moves that Giddens doesn't master. Either you explain what I'm seeing wrong or there's no point on carrying on this conversation; it's useless to debate with people whose only argument is an Appeal to Authority.

Post-modernism has arrived to basketball. 

"Mental game" is a cliché used too often.

Every player in the league would disagree with you.  Ask MJ if mind games played a role in his game.  Ask Paul Pierce the same question.  Ask Rondo, or Baby, or even Ray and Eddie if confidence is important to their jumpshots.  Ask any player if homecourt is a significant advantage.  These are all aspects of the mental game, and they are very important to basketball.

As for the topic relevant to the comment, Giddens has admitted that he's nervous and his legs feel like jelly when he steps on an NBA court.  Is this not noteworthy?  This is one of the biggest reasons that Billy got occasional real minutes this season while Giddens saw 7 minutes in garbage time:  Walker showed the ability to keep his composure at the NBA level, and JR didn't.  I really don't think this side of the game can be dismissed as a cliche.

First, you are using a strawman argument. I didn't say that the mental part is not important; just that it's also a cliché used too often, mostly by people who don't actually have the tools to scout players from a fundamentals perspective and just throw the "not mentally ready" gimmick.

Second, and more important, I'm watching Giddens playing in the D-League. I'm identifying flaws in his game when he's playing in the D-League, not in the NBA. How exactly the fact that he's nervous in the NBA is relevant for this?

You theory is that the fact that he's not mentally ready to play in the NBA is what causes his deficiencies in terms of individual skills when he plays in the D-League? Quite interesting, to say the least. You should write a book on this, the coaching community around the world would be shocked.

This is classic stuff!!!

I am more qualified than you could possibly imagine...

Once again, I'm here to talk about basketball, not about "qualifications". I hope you understand the irony of your answer when quoting a post with a link to the Appeal to Authority wikipedia article. I had to laugh with this one.

No, you are here to question the quality and validity of others responses and then dismiss their justification for it by stating its a "basketball argument" seperate from the source of the argument. 

[BillfromBoston]

If Giddens was ready to contribute defensively in the NBA, I'm pretty sure Doc would have find minutes for him.

I don't agree, for the reasons others have stated. But even if it's that the case, then Doc would have played Giddens, because injuries forced his hand.

If Doc sees in Giddens a NBA ready defender, why hasn't he played him when he needed a defensive backup wing so much? Because he lacks experience? Precisely, he's not NBA ready. Courtney Lee or Mbah a Moute were playing NBA defence basically since day 1. Giddens is not on their level.

There you go. That's the stance I was arguing against.

I don't disagree with what you're seeing from Giddens defensively though, though I think he's a bit better than you give him credit. I just think that's good enough for him to get on the floor, and improve while being given some playing time. There are plenty of inferior defenders playing in the NBA.

Maybe Pruitt should have been seeing more floor time by your reasoning, since I think at one point either Doc or Ainge were saying that he was being their best perimeter defender.

Yes

[BillfromBoston]

I'll never understand why people argue about basketball without knowing what they're talking about. Simply stating "oh, but Ainge said X" and "Ainge said Y" is not a proper argument, from my point of view.

With all due respect, I'm a lot more inclined to believe Ainge's opinion than yours.  You've watched a bunch of games on a not-very-good video feed from nba.com.  He has direct access to the kid's practices, as well as game footage from now all the way back to his KU days - and probably even from high school, if he wanted it for some reason.  

With that said, I think there's a lot of difference between 'ready to contribute defensively in the NBA' and 'ready to be a defensive ace in the NBA'.  People bite on shotfakes in the NBA all the time, but it doesn't mean they aren't good defenders.  Tony Allen is notorious for it, yet he's universally regarded as at least a good defender, and most consider him very good.  With all of this said, though, I took Ainge's comments to mean that he could hold his own defensively in the NBA, but currently his offensive game isn't enough to get him minutes.  I don't necessarily think Danny was endorsing JR seeing the court in a meaningful game.

Sorry to break it for you, but there are three major problems with that kind of argument:
1) Sometimes Ainge lies. It's part of the job. For example, have you ever heard a manager in the draft night saying bad things about his pick?

2) Sometimes Ainge is wrong.

3) It's a formal fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority


I've presented my arguments in defence of my position, explicitly pointing out some of the moves that Giddens doesn't master. Either you explain what I'm seeing wrong or there's no point on carrying on this conversation; it's useless to debate with people whose only argument is an Appeal to Authority.

Post-modernism has arrived to basketball.  

"Mental game" is a cliché used too often.

Every player in the league would disagree with you.  Ask MJ if mind games played a role in his game.  Ask Paul Pierce the same question.  Ask Rondo, or Baby, or even Ray and Eddie if confidence is important to their jumpshots.  Ask any player if homecourt is a significant advantage.  These are all aspects of the mental game, and they are very important to basketball.

As for the topic relevant to the comment, Giddens has admitted that he's nervous and his legs feel like jelly when he steps on an NBA court.  Is this not noteworthy?  This is one of the biggest reasons that Billy got occasional real minutes this season while Giddens saw 7 minutes in garbage time:  Walker showed the ability to keep his composure at the NBA level, and JR didn't.  I really don't think this side of the game can be dismissed as a cliche.

First, you are using a strawman argument. I didn't say that the mental part is not important; just that it's also a cliché used too often, mostly by people who don't actually have the tools to scout players from a fundamentals perspective and just throw the "not mentally ready" gimmick.

Second, and more important, I'm watching Giddens playing in the D-League. I'm identifying flaws in his game when he's playing in the D-League, not in the NBA. How exactly the fact that he's nervous in the NBA is relevant for this?

You theory is that the fact that he's not mentally ready to play in the NBA is what causes his deficiencies in terms of individual skills when he plays in the D-League? Quite interesting, to say the least. You should write a book on this, the coaching community around the world would be shocked.

You're just rejecting the argument based on a point that has nothing to do with the argument itself.  So what if I'm 'appealing to authority'?  As a party who hasn't personally seen too much of Giddens, I'm going to go with the GM with access to practices and video footage over the forum member with access to a crappy video feed.  If he's lying in this case, then so be it:  that's a risk I'm willing to take in an attempt to find the best secondhand information I can find.  

And frankly, you have no right to call out my deferral to Danny on this issue.  "Doc's not playing him, so he must not be ready" is exactly the same thing as what I did:  you're supplying an argument based on a higher authority's opinion.

And, um, I never said the mental game caused Giddens' flaws in the D League.  The original comment was that Giddens isn't mentally ready to contribute on a championship level team.  You disagreed, so I supplied that Giddens himself has admitted that he has butterflies when he plays with the Celtics, which supports the original argument.  What I said had nothing to do with Giddens' skillset, but rather his mental readiness for the NBA game.  I'm not sure if you misunderstood my comment or if you're just trying to put words in my mouth, but either way your argument didn't respond to mine at all.

Yes

[winsomme]

If Doc sees in Giddens a NBA ready defender, why hasn't he played him when he needed a defensive backup wing so much? Because he lacks experience? Precisely, he's not NBA ready. Courtney Lee or Mbah a Moute were playing NBA defence basically since day 1. Giddens is not on their level.

How do we know that Lee or Mbah a Moute would have gotten more playing time on this Cs team than Giddens and/or Walker?

Maybe we would be speculating on their "readiness" had they been picked by the Cs and relying on their D-League stats/play to analyze their potential as an NBA player just as we are now left to do here with Giddens.

I'm definitely intrigued by JR. I'd probably have been happier had they picked Jordan, but I think he has shown enough in the D League to keep me hopeful.

my big thing to watch with him will be his ball handling.

[cordobes]

If Doc sees in Giddens a NBA ready defender, why hasn't he played him when he needed a defensive backup wing so much? Because he lacks experience? Precisely, he's not NBA ready. Courtney Lee or Mbah a Moute were playing NBA defence basically since day 1. Giddens is not on their level.

How do we know that Lee or Mbah a Moute would have gotten more playing time on this Cs team than Giddens and/or Walker?

By watching them? Honestly, I don't know other way.

I fail to understand the rationale that "oh, they only play because their team is much weaker, with the C's they wouldn't sniff the floor". I mean, I understand the concept - it's difficult for a rookie to get PT in a strong team that is contending - but it isn't a dogma. When shall we stop? Would Eric Gordon get minutes with the C's? Brook Lopez? Kevin Love? Derrick Rose? Or can one assume none of them would play more than Giddens and Walker?

Besides, Lee is starting for a 59 wins team that are also a contender and playing well. The idea that he wouldn't be able to gain minutes coming off the bench for Boston is preposterous. Especially considering that our bench wasn't really that good...

[winsomme]

If Doc sees in Giddens a NBA ready defender, why hasn't he played him when he needed a defensive backup wing so much? Because he lacks experience? Precisely, he's not NBA ready. Courtney Lee or Mbah a Moute were playing NBA defence basically since day 1. Giddens is not on their level.

How do we know that Lee or Mbah a Moute would have gotten more playing time on this Cs team than Giddens and/or Walker?

By watching them? Honestly, I don't know other way.

I fail to understand the rationale that "oh, they only play because their team is much weaker, with the C's they wouldn't sniff the floor". I mean, I understand the concept - it's difficult for a rookie to get PT in a strong team that is contending - but it isn't a dogma. When shall we stop? Would Eric Gordon get minutes with the C's? Brook Lopez? Kevin Love? Derrick Rose? Or can one assume none of them would play more than Giddens and Walker?

Besides, Lee is starting for a 59 wins team that are also a contender and playing well. The idea that he wouldn't be able to gain minutes coming off the bench for Boston is preposterous. Especially considering that our bench wasn't really that good...

not preposterous. where would the argument about BBDs ability be right now had we not experienced injuries to basically every other big on the roster forcing him into a starting role?

there simply is no way to know that Doc would be playing Lee and/or Mbah a Moute had they been drafted here....

[cordobes]

Dude, nobody is arguing against what you are seeing on the court - I certainly am not staing that Giddens is "good" at all the things you say he is "bad" at.

Make up your mind: when I said his shooting was sub-par you disagreed and you also said that I wasn't giving him enough praise for his off-the-ball game.

The point myself and some other posters are trying to make is that there is a difference at being deficient in certain elements of the game and being deficient to a degree where the player is incapable of playing meaningful minutes, period.

Yeah, obviously. Everybody agrees with that. You don't need to write so much to make such an obvious point. But there's a disagree whether he's ready or not to play meaningful minutes in the NBA. If people want to argue he is, fine; but use proper arguments and not stuff like "Ainge said so" and "Oh, you don't who I am!!!!!!". That's just childish.  

But others things have been said: that Giddens was NBA ready defensively, for example. And he isn't - he lacks a lot of defensive fundamentals for 24 years old senior college.

This is only one example, but there are more.
 

Let's say all your points are legit - what are the case histories that make Giddens' current flaws proof-positive of his likelihood to fail or succeed?

Show me something more than the fact you can watch a player and see him execute at an effective or ineffective level...how does his game grow or stagnate, why,  and what past experience feeds it?

Huh? I'm not sure if I understand these questions. Please clarify. Are you asking if I predict Giddens to succeed as a NBA player or not? Anyway, I suspect Coach Knight would love to asnwer them.

[winsomme]

If Doc sees in Giddens a NBA ready defender, why hasn't he played him when he needed a defensive backup wing so much? Because he lacks experience? Precisely, he's not NBA ready. Courtney Lee or Mbah a Moute were playing NBA defence basically since day 1. Giddens is not on their level.

How do we know that Lee or Mbah a Moute would have gotten more playing time on this Cs team than Giddens and/or Walker?

By watching them? Honestly, I don't know other way.

I fail to understand the rationale that "oh, they only play because their team is much weaker, with the C's they wouldn't sniff the floor". I mean, I understand the concept - it's difficult for a rookie to get PT in a strong team that is contending - but it isn't a dogma. When shall we stop? Would Eric Gordon get minutes with the C's? Brook Lopez? Kevin Love? Derrick Rose? Or can one assume none of them would play more than Giddens and Walker?

Besides, Lee is starting for a 59 wins team that are also a contender and playing well. The idea that he wouldn't be able to gain minutes coming off the bench for Boston is preposterous. Especially considering that our bench wasn't really that good...

by the way, my point wasn't that they absolutely wouldn't play on the Cs, my point is that it is possible that we would be in the exact same situation (debating D-League stats/play) in analyzing them had they been drafted by the Cs instead of Giddens/Walker...

[Chris]

If Doc sees in Giddens a NBA ready defender, why hasn't he played him when he needed a defensive backup wing so much? Because he lacks experience? Precisely, he's not NBA ready. Courtney Lee or Mbah a Moute were playing NBA defence basically since day 1. Giddens is not on their level.

How do we know that Lee or Mbah a Moute would have gotten more playing time on this Cs team than Giddens and/or Walker?

By watching them? Honestly, I don't know other way.

I fail to understand the rationale that "oh, they only play because their team is much weaker, with the C's they wouldn't sniff the floor". I mean, I understand the concept - it's difficult for a rookie to get PT in a strong team that is contending - but it isn't a dogma. When shall we stop? Would Eric Gordon get minutes with the C's? Brook Lopez? Kevin Love? Derrick Rose? Or can one assume none of them would play more than Giddens and Walker?

Besides, Lee is starting for a 59 wins team that are also a contender and playing well. The idea that he wouldn't be able to gain minutes coming off the bench for Boston is preposterous. Especially considering that our bench wasn't really that good...

Also, I am not sure about Mbah a Moute, but Lee is also a very good offensive player who has knowledge of floor spacing, and overall offensive flow that is very advanced for a Rookie. 

This is something that I think a lot of people overlook.  Being a good one on one defender is not enough to play on a championship caliber team.  The two biggest requirements for anyone to play for the C's is an understanding of defensive rotations, and offensive spacing.  If they cannot grasp that, they will not see the floor.

Now, if they are desperate, Doc is more likely to throw a veteran out there who is still learning these things (like Mikki), than a rookie, since at least with a veteran, there is some hope they can pick it up on the fly. 

This is a big reason why Walker did not see much of the floor.  His offensive spacing was pretty terrible for much of the season, and on defense, he was often over-rotating, and being too aggressive, which was causing problems.  Going back to the preseason, Giddens was having even more trouble than Walker was with these things.

Perhaps things changed throughout the season, but it is very tough to tell since based on the couple games I saw, no one in the D-league knows how to space the floor or rotate correctly on defense.

[winsomme]

Yeah, obviously. Everybody agrees with that. You don't need to write so much to make such an obvious point. But there's a disagree whether he's ready or not to play meaningful minutes in the NBA. If people want to argue he is, fine; but use proper arguments and not stuff like "Ainge said so" and "Oh, you don't who I am!!!!!!". That's just childish.  

But others things have been said: that Giddens was NBA ready defensively, for example. And he isn't - he lacks a lot of defensive fundamentals for 24 years old senior college.

what's the difference in arguing "Danny said so" vs. "Doc said so"?

[cordobes]

If Doc sees in Giddens a NBA ready defender, why hasn't he played him when he needed a defensive backup wing so much? Because he lacks experience? Precisely, he's not NBA ready. Courtney Lee or Mbah a Moute were playing NBA defence basically since day 1. Giddens is not on their level.

How do we know that Lee or Mbah a Moute would have gotten more playing time on this Cs team than Giddens and/or Walker?

By watching them? Honestly, I don't know other way.

I fail to understand the rationale that "oh, they only play because their team is much weaker, with the C's they wouldn't sniff the floor". I mean, I understand the concept - it's difficult for a rookie to get PT in a strong team that is contending - but it isn't a dogma. When shall we stop? Would Eric Gordon get minutes with the C's? Brook Lopez? Kevin Love? Derrick Rose? Or can one assume none of them would play more than Giddens and Walker?

Besides, Lee is starting for a 59 wins team that are also a contender and playing well. The idea that he wouldn't be able to gain minutes coming off the bench for Boston is preposterous. Especially considering that our bench wasn't really that good...

by the way, my point wasn't that they absolutely wouldn't play on the Cs, my point is that it is possible that we would be in the exact same situation (debating D-League stats/play) in analyzing them had they been drafted by the Cs instead of Giddens/Walker...

Is it possible? Yeah, the same way it'd be possible if the C's had drafted Rose, Love, Lopez.

Is it probable? Not at all. They would play, the same way Brook Lopez would play. Or Pietrus. Or Charlie Bell.

[cordobes]

Yeah, obviously. Everybody agrees with that. You don't need to write so much to make such an obvious point. But there's a disagree whether he's ready or not to play meaningful minutes in the NBA. If people want to argue he is, fine; but use proper arguments and not stuff like "Ainge said so" and "Oh, you don't who I am!!!!!!". That's just childish.  

But others things have been said: that Giddens was NBA ready defensively, for example. And he isn't - he lacks a lot of defensive fundamentals for 24 years old senior college.

what's the difference in arguing "Danny said so" vs. "Doc said so"?

I've already explained that numerous times:


I've presented my arguments on why isn't Giddens ready and they had nothing to do with his lack of playing time - I've talked about his defensive deficiencies, his shooting, the bad decision making, the ball-handling, etc.

What I've also said is that if he didn't have those deficiencies, he'd be playing - because when and if he corrects those flaws, he'll easily be a rotational NBA player; and in every roster, let alone one with lack of backup wings like ours.

I don't know how to explain this better. I hope it's enough to clarify the misunderstanding.

Maybe I should have phrased it "if he was a good NBA defender right now, he'd surely be good enough to see playing time for the C's".