Giddens carries Flash to the D-League Finals

[BudweiserCeltic]

Oh, and cordobes... just going to throw a name out for you:

Joe Alexander. Is he more NBA ready and more worthy of playing time than Giddens?

If your answer is no, then you might see how different circumstances and different motivations for doing things explain a ton of decesions of why some players play and some do not, outside of their skill/talent level or readyness to play.

As such, you can see how one can't default to the "oh, if Doc is not playing him it's because he's not ready" reasoning. If anything, your analysis of the player and your opinion of the player as you watch him has more value to me, than simply basing your opinion on someone else's choices because those choices are heavily influenced by other factors and motivations.

[BillfromBoston]

Oh, and cordobes... just going to throw a name out for you:

Joe Alexander. Is he more NBA ready and more worthy of playing time than Giddens?

If your answer is no, then you might see how different circumstances and different motivations for doing things explain a ton of decesions of why some players play and some do not, outside of their skill/talent level or readyness to play.

As such, you can see how one can't default to the "oh, if Doc is not playing him it's because he's not ready" reasoning. If anything, your analysis of the player and your opinion of the player as you watch him has more value to me, than simply basing your opinion on someone else's choices because those choices are heavily influenced by other factors and motivations.

Quoted for Truth...

[BillfromBoston]

Giddens is so naif defensively. Every D-Leaguer looks like a savy 10 year NBA veteran next to him...

It's comments like this that confuse me about Giddens.  You've mentioned several times that Giddens has tools but isn't intelligent on defense, yet Danny claims that he can contribute defensively in the NBA already.  Also, every scouting report I read listed defense as one of Giddens' biggest positives.  

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

Like Tony Allen... oh, wait...

Exactly. Tony Allen averaged 20 minutes per game this season. And he got injured. Oh wait what? For a good part of the season our main weakness was exactly the lack of a defensively solid backup wing.

Depth chart - when TA went down Pruitt and House filled those backup minutes - Ray had been backing up Pierce at SF already - the team used seniority to determine PT...then Marbury came on board.

If Giddens had been so amazingly potent he couldn't be kept off the floor, he would have played. But his talents didn't outweigh his lack of experience and inconsistent execution of team schemes relative to the more senior players.

For the role he would have played, Doc favored execution over top-end potential because not alot was being required from the available role.

[cordobes]

Oh, and cordobes... just going to throw a name out for you:

Joe Alexander. Is he more NBA ready and more worthy of playing time than Giddens?

If your answer is no, then you might see how different circumstances and different motivations for doing things explain a ton of decesions of why some players play and some do not, outside of their skill/talent level or readyness to play.

As such, you can see how one can't default to the "oh, if Doc is not playing him it's because he's not ready" reasoning. If anything, your analysis of the player and your opinion of the player as you watch him has more value to me, than simply basing your opinion on someone else's choices because those choices are heavily influenced by other factors and motivations.

But when exactly have I denied that different circumstances and different motivations for doing things explain a ton of decesions of why some players play and some do not, outside of their skill/talent level or readyness to play?

Again, this is merely a strawman argument.

I don't think Giddens is NBA ready defensively and I've presented my arguments.

This thread is in its 10th page and so far not a single one of them has been rebuffed. Again, what's wrong in my reports of his skill-set?

[BillfromBoston]

I don't know what I'm discussing here anyway. Arguing against a GM talk phrase about a rookie in the draft night? I've actually watched Giddens play enough to be absolutely certain he's not NBA ready defensively. And those who disagree, should explain to me what am I seeing wrong. Just in terms of manxman fundamentals, he doesn't get low enough when closing out; he tends to attempt to block shots only with his right hand; he's over-aggressive with his hands; etc.

Yeah, he has good defensive potential - I even stated in the OP that his niche in the NBA may be as a specialist wing defender; but he needs the savy, the experience and to polish some aspects of his game. But right now, a guy like Trey Johnson can easily put him in the air with a small fake. That wouldn't happen with a NBA ready defender.

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.

That may be so, but your argument against Giddens doesn't take into account the learning environment a player is afforded with PT on an NBA roster with consistent coaching.

It also doesn't account for the level this team is required to execute at because of their championship contending status.

Fewer rookies play substantial roles on contending teams rosters, its much more typical to see youth served on 18-35 win teams where expectations are low and player development is the focus.

Boston doesn't provide the same opportunity for the average rookie - regardless of theoretical PT availability. What Glen Davis did last year was rare, and he was woefully inconsistent and pretty ineffective overall - falling out of the rotation entirely come playoffs.

Most of the learning for youngsters on this team comes via practice and volunteer work outside of games. If Giddens had been drafted by a team like Memphis or Charlotte he likely would have gotten a greater opportunity to play through mistakes and the quality parts of his game would have shown through as well.

As far as his defensive flaws - again, those are fairly common for many rookies - the fact that he actually shows some enthusiasm for defense and has physical tools for the trade are the principle factors in his favor.

With consistent coaching and some opportunity to implement them in a coherent defensive scheme he'd improve greatly I believe.

The D-league is a revolving door of roster changes and role with narry a cohesive team defensive effort to be seen. So Giddens' flaws are going to be accentuated due to a lack of support from the overall team defensive effort.

Nothing he does wrong at this point is a-typical of a first year player, regardless of NCAA experience. If he had been in a situation where winning was secondary to player development I think he'd be much further along now.

Giddens is a learning-by-doing type, not as strong as an observer/studier type.

[BillfromBoston]

He's a much better off-ball prospect than you give him credit for

Wow, really? Much better? How much better? Because I've been praising his off-the-ball game quite a bit! Just in this thread, I repeated that, and I quote myself, "he moves very well off the ball". In fact, I argued that he may have a future in the NBA merely due to his defence and off-the-ball game. And you still think I don't give him credit enough? What's the level of credit he deserves? Should we call him a more athletic Rip Hamilton? Rudy Fernandez with a better shot? Maybe a rich man's Reggie Miller as his celling? Really, I'm curious.

He's also improved across the board - so you can call any part of his game sub-par if you want, but he's developed substantially over the last 2 years.

Look, let's be serious here: I didn't deny he developed (although because I don't care); I just added he's still sub-par. What's your point? That I'm wrong? He shoots 68% from the charity stripe and 28% from distance. Isn't this sub-par shooting for a NBA guard? Is really that what you're trying to argue? The only reason he developed, if he did, is because he was so horrific to start with.



he hasn't shown the ability to take his mental game to a championship level of execution as a limited role player on the top level of performance.

Post-modernism has arrived to basketball. 

"Mental game" is a cliché used too often.

Ok cordobes - your pretty much just an openly hostile jerk when it comes to disagreements with your logic, so good for you.

Unless i'm mistaken, I quoted a statement that referenced a lack of off-ball effectiveness...I later read earlier in the thread where you praised it, so my bad - but why were there two seemingly divergent statements?

Secondly, I wasn't arguing for his proficiency in his shooting, just stating that he had improved greatly over the past two years. The point being that he has been on a nice and steady growth curve that is encouraging considering his physical gifts and overall athletic potential - wasn't arguing that he had arrived.

Seems clear that you prefer prospects who are far more polished and tend to avoid project-types. That's a good proposition in terms of probability as the Mbah Moute's and Courtney Lee's of the world carry less risk.

But there are enough Giddens and Walker types who are further behind developmentally but work themselves into quality players - Giddens seems like a pretty good prospect in this regard even if he is not where he needs to be yet. 

As far as the smarmy remark about Giddens mentalality, if you don't think WHO the individual is as a personality matters, you have a serious flaw in your talent evaluation skills - those factors are heavily weighed when team building. 

[cordobes]

Geez, I know all that, but what's exactly the point you're trying to make? That's like the 1020232th post stating that rookies in a contender have less playing chances than in a lottery team and that may hurt their development. Do you really need such a testament to say that?

I've watched JR Giddens play. I've assessed what are, from my perspective, his current strengths, weaknesses and what seems to me the best developmental path for him in terms of skill-set.

I've been told wrong numerous times; but objective replies, so far, I only found two:

BillfromBoston criticizing my use of the expression "still sub-par" to describe Giddens 68 FT% and 28 3PT%; plus the same poster claiming that he deserves more credit for his off-the-ball game than I give him, in spite of my constant and enthusiastic praise for his off-the-ball game.

It's my opinion that the basketball discussion in this thread is closed for now.

[cordobes]

Unless i'm mistaken, I quoted a statement that referenced a lack of off-ball effectiveness...I later read earlier in the thread where you praised it, so my bad - but why were there two seemingly divergent statements?

Which statement are you talking about?

p.s. - can you save both of us and the remaining posters from ad hominem arguments? I'm here to talk about basketball, not if you're a jerk, or I'm a jerk or whoever is a jerk. Please?

[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...

[cordobes]

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.

[BudweiserCeltic]

Oh, and cordobes... just going to throw a name out for you:

Joe Alexander. Is he more NBA ready and more worthy of playing time than Giddens?

If your answer is no, then you might see how different circumstances and different motivations for doing things explain a ton of decesions of why some players play and some do not, outside of their skill/talent level or readyness to play.

As such, you can see how one can't default to the "oh, if Doc is not playing him it's because he's not ready" reasoning. If anything, your analysis of the player and your opinion of the player as you watch him has more value to me, than simply basing your opinion on someone else's choices because those choices are heavily influenced by other factors and motivations.

But when exactly have I denied that different circumstances and different motivations for doing things explain a ton of decesions of why some players play and some do not, outside of their skill/talent level or readyness to play?

Again, this is merely a strawman argument.

I don't think Giddens is NBA ready defensively and I've presented my arguments.

This thread is in its 10th page and so far not a single one of them has been rebuffed. Again, what's wrong in my reports of his skill-set?

You're denying it when you draw conclusions of Giddens incapability of playing in the NBA based on him not getting playing time. When you start citing examples of rookies getting playing time while Giddens is not. It's not a strawman argument, it's flawed logic. If you're basing it on other factors, then that's something entirely different, and on that we disagree on.

Not much wrong (things I might disagree with) with your reports on his skill-set, I just disagree with what you're concluding about them. Your position can't really be rebuffed because Giddens hasn't been given a fair chance to play in the league, so until then little can be concluded one way or the other. But then you defaulted to Doc as an end-all discussion pretty much.

I think if Giddens were given playing time this year, with his current skill set, he would have had an overall positive impact, and a strong chance that he would have improved defensively with the Celtics' environment and training. How much of an impact? I don't know. Just my opinion, and until he's given a fair chance in the NBA, and his game doesn't deteriorate while playing in the D-League if the chance is not given, I would still be of that opinion.

As is I think he's good enough to contribute, and that's where our main difference of opinion comes from. Citing lack of playing time, like many others around here have done as proof of why Giddens "sucks" (don't think you're of that opinion) is bad reasoning and bad logic.

[cordobes]

Oh, and cordobes... just going to throw a name out for you:

Joe Alexander. Is he more NBA ready and more worthy of playing time than Giddens?

If your answer is no, then you might see how different circumstances and different motivations for doing things explain a ton of decesions of why some players play and some do not, outside of their skill/talent level or readyness to play.

As such, you can see how one can't default to the "oh, if Doc is not playing him it's because he's not ready" reasoning. If anything, your analysis of the player and your opinion of the player as you watch him has more value to me, than simply basing your opinion on someone else's choices because those choices are heavily influenced by other factors and motivations.

But when exactly have I denied that different circumstances and different motivations for doing things explain a ton of decesions of why some players play and some do not, outside of their skill/talent level or readyness to play?

Again, this is merely a strawman argument.

I don't think Giddens is NBA ready defensively and I've presented my arguments.

This thread is in its 10th page and so far not a single one of them has been rebuffed. Again, what's wrong in my reports of his skill-set?

You're denying it when you draw conclusions of Giddens incapability of playing in the NBA based on him not getting playing time. When you start citing examples of rookies getting playing time while Giddens is not. It's not a strawman argument, it's flawed logic. If you're basing it on other factors, then that's something entirely different, and on that we disagree on.

Not much wrong (things I might disagree with) with your reports on his skill-set, I just disagree with what you're concluding about them. Your position can't really be rebuffed because Giddens hasn't been given a fair chance to play in the league, so until then little can be concluded one way or the other. But then you defaulted to Doc as an end-all discussion pretty much.

I think if Giddens were given playing time this year, with his current skill set, he would have had an overall positive impact, and a strong chance that he would have improved defensively with the Celtics' environment and training. How much of an impact? I don't know. Just my opinion, and until he's given a fair chance in the NBA, and his game doesn't deteriorate while playing in the D-League if the chance is not given, I would still be of that opinion.

As is I think he's good enough to contribute, and that's where our main difference of opinion comes from. Citing lack of playing time, like many others around here have done as proof of why Giddens "sucks" (don't think you're of that opinion) is bad reasoning and bad logic.

When I have done this?

You are clearly confused. 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.

[BudweiserCeltic]

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.

[xmuscularghandix]

some young players are only good defenders until they get guarunteed playing time, then its all offense.

[Atzar]

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.