Why Are We Assuming that Ray Allen Won't Start?

[European NBA fan]

@rayallen1934:  Please look it up, as kozlodeev noted it is an official measurement, not a guess.
His posture might make him seem smaller, but that doesn't change the facts. And looking at his game (dunking with ease, blocking D-Wade etc.), I don't see, how you could be doubting.
Bradley's standing reach is actually higher than Austin Rivers'

[wasi]

Everyone says he's smaller than he is, as another poster said he is legitimately slightly over 6' 3".

There's no need to be guessing, he's listed at a quarter of an inch over 6'3, with shoes, in draftexpress.com's measurement section. The measurement is official, which means it was actually taken and published during the predraft process (rather than measured unofficially during a private workout, taken from a media guide, or guessed).

Of course, there are people who will never get the facts get in the way of a good argument, but those will never be convinced anyhow.

Heights are always exaggerated buddy, and he is listed a 6'3 with shows

6'2 without shoes, meaning he's not a legit 6'3 , so please GET YOUR FACTS straight

and the guy might not even be 6'2,  he looks like a 6'2.5 WITH SHOES

The only person that needs to get their facts straight is you. He has a legitimate source for Avery's height meanwhile you're giving your opinion over and over as if it was fact.

The NBA gets smaller and smaller and if Wade can get away with starting at SG then Avery can 1 inch shorter. How many undersized players at all positions are great in this league? Tons. Look at power forwards for example, they range from like 6'6" up to 7 feet. It's all in how you play, some guys are effective playing bigger players and some aren't. Time will tell.

As kozlodoev said his wingspan helps make up for his lack of height as well. Wingspan to me is really the most important factor. If he had a below average wingspan at his height it wouldn't work.

[rayallen1934]

Everyone says he's smaller than he is, as another poster said he is legitimately slightly over 6' 3".

There's no need to be guessing, he's listed at a quarter of an inch over 6'3, with shoes, in draftexpress.com's measurement section. The measurement is official, which means it was actually taken and published during the predraft process (rather than measured unofficially during a private workout, taken from a media guide, or guessed).

Of course, there are people who will never get the facts get in the way of a good argument, but those will never be convinced anyhow.

Heights are always exaggerated buddy, and he is listed a 6'3 with shows

6'2 without shoes, meaning he's not a legit 6'3 , so please GET YOUR FACTS straight

and the guy might not even be 6'2,  he looks like a 6'2.5 WITH SHOES

The only person that needs to get their facts straight is you. He has a legitimate source for Avery's height meanwhile you're giving your opinion over and over as if it was fact.

The NBA gets smaller and smaller and if Wade can get away with starting at SG then Avery can 1 inch shorter. How many undersized players at all positions are great in this league? Tons. Look at power forwards for example, they range from like 6'6" up to 7 feet. It's all in how you play, some guys are effective playing bigger players and some aren't. Time will tell.

As kozlodoev said his wingspan helps make up for his lack of height as well. Wingspan to me is really the most important factor. If he had a below average wingspan at his height it wouldn't work.

im not making bradley look bad by saying what i think his height is

hes a short shooting guard. Wade looks bigger than he does.

Now I'm not trying to prove anything that this effects his game.

I know he has a nice big wing span, and he's insanely athletic,

but he's still short, and getting his shot off is going to be tough , tougher than it already is.

Ive seen this before on many other teams I've followed. Bradley is going to have it tough at SG, if he's relied upon its gonna be a big thing for him.

I think he can do it, but i would be much more confident if he was 6'4 or 6'5

[KGs Knee]

Everyone says he's smaller than he is, as another poster said he is legitimately slightly over 6' 3".

There's no need to be guessing, he's listed at a quarter of an inch over 6'3, with shoes, in draftexpress.com's measurement section. The measurement is official, which means it was actually taken and published during the predraft process (rather than measured unofficially during a private workout, taken from a media guide, or guessed).

Of course, there are people who will never get the facts get in the way of a good argument, but those will never be convinced anyhow.

Heights are always exaggerated buddy, and he is listed a 6'3 with shows

6'2 without shoes, meaning he's not a legit 6'3 , so please GET YOUR FACTS straight

and the guy might not even be 6'2,  he looks like a 6'2.5 WITH SHOES

The only person that needs to get their facts straight is you. He has a legitimate source for Avery's height meanwhile you're giving your opinion over and over as if it was fact.

The NBA gets smaller and smaller and if Wade can get away with starting at SG then Avery can 1 inch shorter. How many undersized players at all positions are great in this league? Tons. Look at power forwards for example, they range from like 6'6" up to 7 feet. It's all in how you play, some guys are effective playing bigger players and some aren't. Time will tell.

As kozlodoev said his wingspan helps make up for his lack of height as well. Wingspan to me is really the most important factor. If he had a below average wingspan at his height it wouldn't work.

Yup; standing reach, wingspan & vertical leap are all more important than heigth (although they can be partially tied together).  You don't block/steal/shoot the ball with your head, you use your hands.

[Meadowlark_Scal]

Bradley was averaging like 4 points a game in the Atlant/Sixers series. His cuts were being totally stopped and his shot was way off, and he wasn't playing that great of defense.


People look at that stat of efficiency and really take it to another level.

Efficiency rating is one of the most revealing and accurate stats in basketball. I think the sample size was just fine aznd truly indicative of what was happening on the floor.

The Celtics starters, even in 2008, with one of the most dominating defensive teams ever, didn't have a 89 efficiency on defense. So the whole "Pierce and KG weren't playing well" argument doesn't work because when they were 4 years younger, the group didn't play defense as efficiently as when Bradley was playing this year.

wasn't it at that point that bradleys shoulders were already on the way out.....ever try shooting with a bad shoulder....?

[Celtics4ever]

Will to defend is important too.  Avery just has the mindset and that coupled with long arms and athletic ability is a win win for us.

Presently there is no guarentee that Ray Ray will be back.

[nickagneta]

Allen Iverson - 6 foot even - played about half his career at SG and was a league MVP

Jerry West - 6' 2" - one of best SGs of all-time

Monte Ellis - 6'3"

Andrew Toney - 6'3"

Joe Dumars - 6'3"

Earl Monroe - 6'3"

Eric Gordon - 6'3"

Jeff Hornacek - 6'3"

And the list goes on. Some of the best offensive and defensive SGs of all-time were 6'3" or smaller. Bradley can get the job done regardless of his size. His size does not matter.

[2dark]

Bradley was averaging like 4 points a game in the Atlant/Sixers series. His cuts were being totally stopped and his shot was way off, and he wasn't playing that great of defense.


People look at that stat of efficiency and really take it to another level.

Efficiency rating is one of the most revealing and accurate stats in basketball. I think the sample size was just fine aznd truly indicative of what was happening on the floor.

The Celtics starters, even in 2008, with one of the most dominating defensive teams ever, didn't have a 89 efficiency on defense. So the whole "Pierce and KG weren't playing well" argument doesn't work because when they were 4 years younger, the group didn't play defense as efficiently as when Bradley was playing this year.

wasn't it at that point that bradleys shoulders were already on the way out.....ever try shooting with a bad shoulder....?

Yes, it is horrible to shoot with your shoulders popping out, luckily he didn t play with bone spurs because people from this blog would call him declining/washed up/done and would be happy to see him go to miami:D
1 set of rules for him, 1 set of rules for Ray I guess:D:D

[Marcus13]

Oh he's going to be starting.......in LA

[BballTim]

You're missing the point.

This isn't just about who should start: it's if it comes down to Ray staying and starting or leaving, Ray staying and starting is better. 

  If it comes down to that, you have to let him leave.

Yup. Player signs a contract to play for a team in a role that best helps them to win. The coach determines that role, not a player. Can't let the tail wag the dog.

If Ray wants to sign with the C's, he has to accept whatever role is assigned to him. Period. End of story.

If that isn't good for him, sorry to say it, but Ray needs to go.

This is just silly.  The guy is a first ballot Hall of Famer and arguably the greatest shooter in the history of the NBA.  It's not insane for him to want to start. 

Even if you don't agree with that, it's one thing to think Bradley should start.  It's another to think that we're better off without Ray Allen. 

  First of all, Bird was a better shooter. Beyond that, and you didn't address it before, but what if Ray's play continues to decline or Bradley really starts playing well? Who starts then? What happens to our chemistry when a number of players on the team think that Ray didn't earn his place in the lineup, but his agent negotiated it for him? It would be a disaster.

[rayallen1934]

You're missing the point.

This isn't just about who should start: it's if it comes down to Ray staying and starting or leaving, Ray staying and starting is better. 

  If it comes down to that, you have to let him leave.

Yup. Player signs a contract to play for a team in a role that best helps them to win. The coach determines that role, not a player. Can't let the tail wag the dog.

If Ray wants to sign with the C's, he has to accept whatever role is assigned to him. Period. End of story.

If that isn't good for him, sorry to say it, but Ray needs to go.

This is just silly.  The guy is a first ballot Hall of Famer and arguably the greatest shooter in the history of the NBA.  It's not insane for him to want to start. 

Even if you don't agree with that, it's one thing to think Bradley should start.  It's another to think that we're better off without Ray Allen. 

  First of all, Bird was a better shooter. Beyond that, and you didn't address it before, but what if Ray's play continues to decline or Bradley really starts playing well? Who starts then? What happens to our chemistry when a number of players on the team think that Ray didn't earn his place in the lineup, but his agent negotiated it for him? It would be a disaster.

Bird was amazing, but Ray is better, unless you can prove me otherwise , since i barely saw bird play

[BballTim]

You're missing the point.

This isn't just about who should start: it's if it comes down to Ray staying and starting or leaving, Ray staying and starting is better. 

  If it comes down to that, you have to let him leave.

Yup. Player signs a contract to play for a team in a role that best helps them to win. The coach determines that role, not a player. Can't let the tail wag the dog.

If Ray wants to sign with the C's, he has to accept whatever role is assigned to him. Period. End of story.

If that isn't good for him, sorry to say it, but Ray needs to go.

This is just silly.  The guy is a first ballot Hall of Famer and arguably the greatest shooter in the history of the NBA.  It's not insane for him to want to start. 

Even if you don't agree with that, it's one thing to think Bradley should start.  It's another to think that we're better off without Ray Allen. 

  First of all, Bird was a better shooter. Beyond that, and you didn't address it before, but what if Ray's play continues to decline or Bradley really starts playing well? Who starts then? What happens to our chemistry when a number of players on the team think that Ray didn't earn his place in the lineup, but his agent negotiated it for him? It would be a disaster.

Bird was amazing, but Ray is better, unless you can prove me otherwise , since i barely saw bird play

  If you barely saw Bird play, how do you know he wasn't better? And if you barely saw him play, you only saw him post back injury when he was a shell of himself as a player.

[rayallen1934]

You're missing the point.

This isn't just about who should start: it's if it comes down to Ray staying and starting or leaving, Ray staying and starting is better. 

  If it comes down to that, you have to let him leave.

Yup. Player signs a contract to play for a team in a role that best helps them to win. The coach determines that role, not a player. Can't let the tail wag the dog.

If Ray wants to sign with the C's, he has to accept whatever role is assigned to him. Period. End of story.

If that isn't good for him, sorry to say it, but Ray needs to go.

This is just silly.  The guy is a first ballot Hall of Famer and arguably the greatest shooter in the history of the NBA.  It's not insane for him to want to start. 

Even if you don't agree with that, it's one thing to think Bradley should start.  It's another to think that we're better off without Ray Allen. 

  First of all, Bird was a better shooter. Beyond that, and you didn't address it before, but what if Ray's play continues to decline or Bradley really starts playing well? Who starts then? What happens to our chemistry when a number of players on the team think that Ray didn't earn his place in the lineup, but his agent negotiated it for him? It would be a disaster.

Bird was amazing, but Ray is better, unless you can prove me otherwise , since i barely saw bird play

  If you barely saw Bird play, how do you know he wasn't better? And if you barely saw him play, you only saw him post back injury when he was a shell of himself as a player.

Rays shot is a thing of beauty, birds wasn't that pretty, bird shot better from the field yet, but his three point shooting isn't even CLOSE to Ray's, Free throw shooting Ray is also better

considering Ray shoots a ton more 3's , he does pretty well in shooting the ball at 45%

[Jon]

You're missing the point.

This isn't just about who should start: it's if it comes down to Ray staying and starting or leaving, Ray staying and starting is better. 

  If it comes down to that, you have to let him leave.

Yup. Player signs a contract to play for a team in a role that best helps them to win. The coach determines that role, not a player. Can't let the tail wag the dog.

If Ray wants to sign with the C's, he has to accept whatever role is assigned to him. Period. End of story.

If that isn't good for him, sorry to say it, but Ray needs to go.

This is just silly.  The guy is a first ballot Hall of Famer and arguably the greatest shooter in the history of the NBA.  It's not insane for him to want to start. 

Even if you don't agree with that, it's one thing to think Bradley should start.  It's another to think that we're better off without Ray Allen. 

  First of all, Bird was a better shooter. Beyond that, and you didn't address it before, but what if Ray's play continues to decline or Bradley really starts playing well? Who starts then? What happens to our chemistry when a number of players on the team think that Ray didn't earn his place in the lineup, but his agent negotiated it for him? It would be a disaster.

That's why I said arguably.  I never said he was the best.  But the point is that the guy is a Top 50 player ever.  When you're that good, you're allowed to make some semi-unreasonable demands.  

But my entire point is that starting means very little to the team.  And remember, just because Ray starts doesn't mean he has to play starters minutes.

My point is simply this: if Ray says to Danny, "it's between you and LA, if you guarantee I can start, I'll choose you, if not, I walk" then Danny should just guarantee him a starting spot.  They're certainly a better team with him starting and Bradley on the bench than they are with Bradley starting and no Ray Allen.  

If Ray and Bradley are both on the team next year, they're both going to play.  If Bradley outplays Ray, then he should simply get more minutes.  There have been plenty of bench players who have played more minutes than some starters over the years (Jason Terry being a case in point).  So if Bradley outplays Ray, let Ray start and get 15-20 minutes and give Bradley 30+ minutes off the bench.  

If Ray makes no such demands, then as far as I'm concerned, Doc can do whatever he darn pleases.  I'm not attached to the idea of Ray starting, I just don't see why the team can't just let him start if it's a deal breaker for him.  

[Tr1boy]

Ainge will do no such thing to guarantee a starting position. Rivers might be a little different, but i'm sure he knows he will get in trouble guaranteeing anyone a starting position. Only ones for sure right now are KG and PP and otherwise depends on how everyone plays. Bradley though should get the inside scoop to start. He does alot of things better than Allen to warrant this, especially defense.

With Terry signing and teams like Grizzlies and Clippers able to guarantee more of a starting role, i think Allen will walk. He prob would like to sign with a contender though instead of a team like the Grizzlies. But has alot of pride and wants to start and finish the game.

With Terry Signing and less minutes to go around, don't think he will comeback