Can we please stop calling IT a 6th man?

[celticsclay]

This guy is now an all-star and just led us to our first playoff win in several years with a 40 point game. Frankly if I read that again on these forums I will be embarrassed for all of us

[MJohnnyboy]

I agree but unfortunately there will always be doubters no matter what IT does, but that alone is the best part. Isaiah thrives from being doubted so I say keep it comin' haters!

[trickybilly]

Surround him with not the 2nd worst 3pt shooting team in the NBA and we are contenders

Dear Kevin,

[CelticSooner]

If anyone calls him a 6th man it's because he's 5'9 and can be a sieve on defense. Bradley has helped cover up some of that. He's a great scorer tho no one doubts that. Just need to hide him on D at times.

[jpotter33]

People have a misconstrued, negative notion of what a sixth man really is.

Look, IT played absolutely outstanding tonight offensively, but he also was pretty terrible defensively. He provides no resistance to Teague defensively (or most point guards for that matter), which isn't ideal for your starting point guard.

Ideally, he is the sixth man on a contending team where he can be a high usage, high scoring leader of the bench mob. I don't see why this is such a controversial notion with some of you. The environment our present team consists of is the absolute perfect combination for IT to star as a scoring, All-Star starter on our team. However, we're far from being a real contender, and real contenders don't have huge gaping holes that can be consistently exploited.

On January 13, 2015, Mo Williams scored 52 points - does that necessarily mean he should be a starter and not a sixth man? Absolutely not.

Jamal Crawford (the prototypical sixth man) has long went on huge scoring binges like IT night, and he was doing it from the bench. Does that mean he should start and not be a sixth man? Absolutely not.

I still believe that IT's ideal role is a sixth man scorer off of the bench, and that's not too crazy of an idea to have just because he occasionally has big scoring nights like tonight. He's tailor-made for being today's prototypical sixth man, and I'd love him to be that for us, just like Crawford is for LA.

[Smart457]

People have a misconstrued, negative notion of what a sixth man really is.

Look, IT played absolutely outstanding tonight offensively, but he also was pretty terrible defensively. He provides no resistance to Teague defensively (or most point guards for that matter), which isn't ideal for your starting point guard.

Ideally, he is the sixth man on a contending team where he can be a high usage, high scoring leader of the bench mob. I don't see why this is such a controversial notion with some of you. The environment our present team consists of is the absolute perfect combination for IT to star as a scoring, All-Star starter on our team. However, we're far from being a real contender, and real contenders don't have huge gaping holes that can be consistently exploited.

On January 13, 2015, Mo Williams scored 52 points - does that necessarily mean he should be a starter and not a sixth man? Absolutely not.

Jamal Crawford (the prototypical sixth man) has long went on huge scoring binges like IT night, and he was doing it from the bench. Does that mean he should start and not be a sixth man? Absolutely not.

I still believe that IT's ideal role is a sixth man scorer off of the bench, and that's not too crazy of an idea to have just because he occasionally has big scoring nights like tonight. He's tailor-made for being today's prototypical sixth man, and I'd love him to be that for us, just like Crawford is for LA.

Stand down son. Stand down.

You are not winning that argument no matter how you spin it. IT is way too productive of a player to sit.

[Forza Juventus]

This guy is now an all-star and just led us to our first playoff win in several years with a 40 point game. Frankly if I read that again on these forums I will be embarrassed for all of us

Exactly!

[celticsclay]

People have a misconstrued, negative notion of what a sixth man really is.

Look, IT played absolutely outstanding tonight offensively, but he also was pretty terrible defensively. He provides no resistance to Teague defensively (or most point guards for that matter), which isn't ideal for your starting point guard.

Ideally, he is the sixth man on a contending team where he can be a high usage, high scoring leader of the bench mob. I don't see why this is such a controversial notion with some of you. The environment our present team consists of is the absolute perfect combination for IT to star as a scoring, All-Star starter on our team. However, we're far from being a real contender, and real contenders don't have huge gaping holes that can be consistently exploited.

On January 13, 2015, Mo Williams scored 52 points - does that necessarily mean he should be a starter and not a sixth man? Absolutely not.

Jamal Crawford (the prototypical sixth man) has long went on huge scoring binges like IT night, and he was doing it from the bench. Does that mean he should start and not be a sixth man? Absolutely not.

I still believe that IT's ideal role is a sixth man scorer off of the bench, and that's not too crazy of an idea to have just because he occasionally has big scoring nights like tonight. He's tailor-made for being today's prototypical sixth man, and I'd love him to be that for us, just like Crawford is for LA.

It is insulting to compare IT to mo Williams. Crawford is every bit as bad defensively as IT and isn't nearly the playmaker.

[DarkAzcura]

People have a misconstrued, negative notion of what a sixth man really is.

Look, IT played absolutely outstanding tonight offensively, but he also was pretty terrible defensively. He provides no resistance to Teague defensively (or most point guards for that matter), which isn't ideal for your starting point guard.

Ideally, he is the sixth man on a contending team where he can be a high usage, high scoring leader of the bench mob. I don't see why this is such a controversial notion with some of you. The environment our present team consists of is the absolute perfect combination for IT to star as a scoring, All-Star starter on our team. However, we're far from being a real contender, and real contenders don't have huge gaping holes that can be consistently exploited.

On January 13, 2015, Mo Williams scored 52 points - does that necessarily mean he should be a starter and not a sixth man? Absolutely not.

Jamal Crawford (the prototypical sixth man) has long went on huge scoring binges like IT night, and he was doing it from the bench. Does that mean he should start and not be a sixth man? Absolutely not.

I still believe that IT's ideal role is a sixth man scorer off of the bench, and that's not too crazy of an idea to have just because he occasionally has big scoring nights like tonight. He's tailor-made for being today's prototypical sixth man, and I'd love him to be that for us, just like Crawford is for LA.

It's negative connotation because when people make this argument, you pretend that IT's only value is scoring. He is a very good passer and balances that part of his game well. Unlike a Crawford, he actually gets his offense within the flow of the game. Crawford's inability to play within the flow of the offense is what makes him a better 6th man than starter. It's always been that way with him. He's not even a quarter of the playmaker that IT is either and only just recently cracked 20 PPG per 36 in the last few years where as IT has pretty much been there the last three seasons with almost a 25 PPG per 36 average this season. Not only is IT a far greater playmaker than Crawford, but he is also a better scorer.

Mo Williams was actually the second best player on a contending Cavs team so that really wasn't the best comparison especially considering he also has never really cracked past 18 PPG per 36, which makes him a far worse scorer than IT.

You probably just cited two of the best 6th men in recent history (other than Manu), and IT is simply on another level than those two by the numbers. It's not even an argument so that's why people feel it has a negative connotation. You are comparing him to far less impactful players to prove why he should be in a certain role.

It may be a surprise considering we have Bradley and Smart, but most teams actually have terrible defensive starting guards. Lillard, Jackson, Irving. They are all dreadful defensively. Are they also 6th men ideally?

[Smart457]

People have a misconstrued, negative notion of what a sixth man really is.

Look, IT played absolutely outstanding tonight offensively, but he also was pretty terrible defensively. He provides no resistance to Teague defensively (or most point guards for that matter), which isn't ideal for your starting point guard.

Ideally, he is the sixth man on a contending team where he can be a high usage, high scoring leader of the bench mob. I don't see why this is such a controversial notion with some of you. The environment our present team consists of is the absolute perfect combination for IT to star as a scoring, All-Star starter on our team. However, we're far from being a real contender, and real contenders don't have huge gaping holes that can be consistently exploited.

On January 13, 2015, Mo Williams scored 52 points - does that necessarily mean he should be a starter and not a sixth man? Absolutely not.

Jamal Crawford (the prototypical sixth man) has long went on huge scoring binges like IT night, and he was doing it from the bench. Does that mean he should start and not be a sixth man? Absolutely not.

I still believe that IT's ideal role is a sixth man scorer off of the bench, and that's not too crazy of an idea to have just because he occasionally has big scoring nights like tonight. He's tailor-made for being today's prototypical sixth man, and I'd love him to be that for us, just like Crawford is for LA.

It's negative connotation because when people make this argument, you pretend that IT's only value is scoring. He is a very good passer and balances that part of his game well. Unlike a Crawford, he actually gets his offense within the flow of the game. Crawford's inability to play within the flow of the offense is what makes him a better 6th man than starter. It's always been that way with him. He's not even a quarter of the playmaker that IT is either and only just recently cracked 20 PPG per 36 in the last few years where as IT has pretty much been there the last three seasons with almost a 25 PPG per 36 average. Not only is IT a far greater playmaker than Crawford, but he is also a better scorer.

Mo Williams was actually the second best player on a contending Cavs team so that really wasn't the best comparison especially considering he also has never really cracked past 18 PPG per 36, which makes him a far worse scorer than IT.

You probably just cited two of the best 6th men in recent history (other than Manu), and IT is simply on another level than those two by the numbers. It's not even an argument so that's why people feel it has a negative connotation. You are comparing him to far less impactful players to prove why he should be in a certain role.

Good post.

Steph Curry would be a great 6th man. Maybe the all time greatest ever. Thankfully the Warriors haven't figured that out yet.

[celticsclay]

People have a misconstrued, negative notion of what a sixth man really is.

Look, IT played absolutely outstanding tonight offensively, but he also was pretty terrible defensively. He provides no resistance to Teague defensively (or most point guards for that matter), which isn't ideal for your starting point guard.

Ideally, he is the sixth man on a contending team where he can be a high usage, high scoring leader of the bench mob. I don't see why this is such a controversial notion with some of you. The environment our present team consists of is the absolute perfect combination for IT to star as a scoring, All-Star starter on our team. However, we're far from being a real contender, and real contenders don't have huge gaping holes that can be consistently exploited.

On January 13, 2015, Mo Williams scored 52 points - does that necessarily mean he should be a starter and not a sixth man? Absolutely not.

Jamal Crawford (the prototypical sixth man) has long went on huge scoring binges like IT night, and he was doing it from the bench. Does that mean he should start and not be a sixth man? Absolutely not.

I still believe that IT's ideal role is a sixth man scorer off of the bench, and that's not too crazy of an idea to have just because he occasionally has big scoring nights like tonight. He's tailor-made for being today's prototypical sixth man, and I'd love him to be that for us, just like Crawford is for LA.

It's negative connotation because when people make this argument, you pretend that IT's only value is scoring. He is a very good passer and balances that part of his game well. Unlike a Crawford, he actually gets his offense within the flow of the game. Crawford's inability to play within the flow of the offense is what makes him a better 6th man than starter. It's always been that way with him. He's not even a quarter of the playmaker that IT is either and only just recently cracked 20 PPG per 36 in the last few years where as IT has pretty much been there the last three seasons with almost a 25 PPG per 36 average. Not only is IT a far greater playmaker than Crawford, but he is also a better scorer.

Mo Williams was actually the second best player on a contending Cavs team so that really wasn't the best comparison especially considering he also has never really cracked past 18 PPG per 36, which makes him a far worse scorer than IT.

You probably just cited two of the best 6th men in recent history (other than Manu), and IT is simply on another level than those two by the numbers. It's not even an argument so that's why people feel it has a negative connotation. You are comparing him to far less impactful players to prove why he should be in a certain role.

Yeah pretty much this times 1000x and lots
Of other reasons

[mrceltics2013]

You make it seem like being a 6th man is a bad thing. isn't the job of a 6th man to lead the 2nd unit or come off the bench and take on the load of scoring? If we had a John Wall as our starting PG and IT to lead the 2nd unit I would be excited every night. I don't like IT having to play so hard because I feel like its going to wear him down the the long run.

[jpotter33]

Okay, okay. I'm sorry that I upset the cult of IT. This is reaching Rondo levels now with this ridiculousness 

Still don't think it's that controversial of a notion to make this argument. You add more scorers around IT and not have him start with four players that probably aren't even third options on a championship-caliber team, and he's much less valuable. He should be starting on this team, but ideally on a contending team he should be a sixth man. Bar none.

[jpotter33]

You make it seem like being a 6th man is a bad thing. isn't the job of a 6th man to lead the 2nd unit or come off the bench and take on the load of scoring? If we had a John Wall as our starting PG and IT to lead the 2nd unit I would be excited every night. I don't like IT having to play so hard because I feel like its going to wear him down the the long run.

This is exactly what I'm arguing, though it doesn't even necessarily take having an All-Star in front of him. Being the 6th man is a pretty important role - you would think that Celtics fans of all people would understand that...

[BDeCosta26]

People have a misconstrued, negative notion of what a sixth man really is.

Look, IT played absolutely outstanding tonight offensively, but he also was pretty terrible defensively. He provides no resistance to Teague defensively (or most point guards for that matter), which isn't ideal for your starting point guard.

Ideally, he is the sixth man on a contending team where he can be a high usage, high scoring leader of the bench mob. I don't see why this is such a controversial notion with some of you. The environment our present team consists of is the absolute perfect combination for IT to star as a scoring, All-Star starter on our team. However, we're far from being a real contender, and real contenders don't have huge gaping holes that can be consistently exploited.

On January 13, 2015, Mo Williams scored 52 points - does that necessarily mean he should be a starter and not a sixth man? Absolutely not.

Jamal Crawford (the prototypical sixth man) has long went on huge scoring binges like IT night, and he was doing it from the bench. Does that mean he should start and not be a sixth man? Absolutely not.

I still believe that IT's ideal role is a sixth man scorer off of the bench, and that's not too crazy of an idea to have just because he occasionally has big scoring nights like tonight. He's tailor-made for being today's prototypical sixth man, and I'd love him to be that for us, just like Crawford is for LA.

It's negative connotation because when people make this argument, you pretend that IT's only value is scoring. He is a very good passer and balances that part of his game well. Unlike a Crawford, he actually gets his offense within the flow of the game. Crawford's inability to play within the flow of the offense is what makes him a better 6th man than starter. It's always been that way with him. He's not even a quarter of the playmaker that IT is either and only just recently cracked 20 PPG per 36 in the last few years where as IT has pretty much been there the last three seasons with almost a 25 PPG per 36 average this season. Not only is IT a far greater playmaker than Crawford, but he is also a better scorer.

Mo Williams was actually the second best player on a contending Cavs team so that really wasn't the best comparison especially considering he also has never really cracked past 18 PPG per 36, which makes him a far worse scorer than IT.

You probably just cited two of the best 6th men in recent history (other than Manu), and IT is simply on another level than those two by the numbers. It's not even an argument so that's why people feel it has a negative connotation. You are comparing him to far less impactful players to prove why he should be in a certain role.

It may be a surprise considering we have Bradley and Smart, but most teams actually have terrible defensive starting guards. Lillard, Jackson, Irving. They are all dreadful defensively. Are they also 6th men ideally?

Here here. Great post. TP.

Jamal Crawford, Mo Williams, Lou Williams, etc are all great 6th men because they can score in bunches. Some of those guys can even make the easy pass for an open look when drawing coverage, allowing a few high assist games. But none of those guys make plays at the level IT does. Isaiah just averaged 21/7 on a 48 win playoff team in a tough EC. None of those guys are doing that. Plus, IT is just a flat out better scorer than them too.

Also, let me say that this whole "IT is a defensive liability" thing is way overblown. He's a better defender than Lillard, Irving, Jackson, etc. Really, if he was 6'1, he'd be a perfectly adequate defender, he isn't lost out there like Lillard is. Heck, tonight he made a two HUGE defensive plays toward the end of the game, contesting a drive to the rim that forced a missed and jumping in the passing lane for a big steal.

If you have any doubt that IT is a top 20/25 player in the NBA, watch this game. You'd have to be a fool to think this dude is "really just a 6th man".