Can we please stop calling IT a 6th man?

[Smart457]

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.

If he played with better shooters he would have more space to operate. He would be pretty tough to stop if the defense had to legitimately worry about two other all stars.

[DarkAzcura]

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.

Being a 6th man isn't a bad thing depending on the situation. The issue is there is a segment of the fanbase that is essentially wishing that IT is 'put' into his rightful place on the bench and they hide it behind excuses like Crawford and Williams or whoever else is just a far worse player than IT.

If the Celtics went out there and added two 20+ PPG guys to the perimeter and wings, which I think is overkill honestly, I would be in favor of moving IT to the bench. I think having three 20+ PPG guys on a team (let alone just a five man lineup) is overkill. That's why it was fine when a guy like Harden came off the bench with Westbrook and Durant ahead of him or Manu off the bench with Parkee and Duncan in the starting lineup. If we had that type of team, then sure I don't think mixing it up would be a bad thing.

It's when I hear comparisons to guys like Crawford, Williams, Lou Williams, etc that grind my gears and probably some others. Those guys can't even close.

[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.

Being a 6th man isn't a bad thing depending on the situation. The issue is there is a segment of the fanbase that is essentially wishing that IT is 'put' into his rightful place on the bench and they hide it behind excuses like Crawford and Williams or whoever else is just a far worse player than IT.

If the Celtics went out there and added two 20+ PPG guys to the perimeter and wings, which I think is overkill honestly, I would be in favor of moving IT to the bench. I think having three 20+ PPG guys on a team (let alone just a five man lineup) is overkill. That's why it was fine when a guy like Harden came off the bench with Westbrook and Durant ahead of him or Manu off the bench with Parkee and Duncan in the starting lineup. If we had that type of team, then sure I don't think mixing it up would be a bad thing.

It's when I hear comparisons to guys like Crawford, Williams, Lou Williams, etc that grind my gears and probably some others. Those guys can't even close.

Maybe you should reread what I've written objectively, because I'm not arguing anything other than what you just put...

[kraidstar]

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...

yes, we should - kevin mchale was 6th man of the year twice ('83-84, '84-85) - and bill walton once ('85-86).

[DarkAzcura]

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.

Yeah, you can't really come up with a reasonable argument for it so you just fall behind demaning others by calling people the 'cult of IT.' Dude comparing him to Crawford and Mo Williams is as ridiculous as me saying IT is comparable to Curry. These are completely different levels of players all around and every number on the planet backs that up so there is nothing 'bar none' about what you are saying. IT isn't an isolation player who demands long touches with the ball. Surrounding him with scorers would make him even more effective, not less so.

Like I said, there is a situation where IT should be entertained to be coming off the bench, but your comparison and reasons are way off.

[DarkAzcura]

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.

Being a 6th man isn't a bad thing depending on the situation. The issue is there is a segment of the fanbase that is essentially wishing that IT is 'put' into his rightful place on the bench and they hide it behind excuses like Crawford and Williams or whoever else is just a far worse player than IT.

If the Celtics went out there and added two 20+ PPG guys to the perimeter and wings, which I think is overkill honestly, I would be in favor of moving IT to the bench. I think having three 20+ PPG guys on a team (let alone just a five man lineup) is overkill. That's why it was fine when a guy like Harden came off the bench with Westbrook and Durant ahead of him or Manu off the bench with Parkee and Duncan in the starting lineup. If we had that type of team, then sure I don't think mixing it up would be a bad thing.

It's when I hear comparisons to guys like Crawford, Williams, Lou Williams, etc that grind my gears and probably some others. Those guys can't even close.

Maybe you should reread what I've written objectively, because I'm not arguing anything other than what you just put...

You actually are just by mentioning Mo Williams and Jamal Crawford relative to IT.

If your comparison had mentioned Manu or OKC Harden, then I wouldn't have so viciously disagreed with you. I was pointing out the fact that people have a negative connotation about IT being a 6th man because the guys who generally prop that viewpoint up make player comparisons that completely demean IT's impact. Again Crawford isn't anywhere close to what I want and expect from IT. No one should.

Also the big difference in what we are saying is that I think having that much scoring in general is overkill and messes with balance. If the Celtics added Butler and Durant to the Celtics, then sure entertain bringing IT off the bench, but do I think adding both those players is necessary to the Celtics becoming contenders? Absolutely not. I think you could contend in the East with a IT + Butler core or IT + Durant core as your main scoring headliners (more so with the latter combo obv).

[hwangjini_1]

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...

yes, we should - kevin mchale was 6th man of the year twice ('83-84, '84-85) - and bill walton once ('85-86).

thank you kstar, beat me to the post. a tp for you and your memory.

[Smart457]

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.

Being a 6th man isn't a bad thing depending on the situation. The issue is there is a segment of the fanbase that is essentially wishing that IT is 'put' into his rightful place on the bench and they hide it behind excuses like Crawford and Williams or whoever else is just a far worse player than IT.

If the Celtics went out there and added two 20+ PPG guys to the perimeter and wings, which I think is overkill honestly, I would be in favor of moving IT to the bench. I think having three 20+ PPG guys on a team (let alone just a five man lineup) is overkill. That's why it was fine when a guy like Harden came off the bench with Westbrook and Durant ahead of him or Manu off the bench with Parkee and Duncan in the starting lineup. If we had that type of team, then sure I don't think mixing it up would be a bad thing.

It's when I hear comparisons to guys like Crawford, Williams, Lou Williams, etc that grind my gears and probably some others. Those guys can't even close.

Maybe you should reread what I've written objectively, because I'm not arguing anything other than what you just put...

You actually are just by mentioning Mo Williams and Jamal Crawford relative to IT.

If your comparison had mentioned Manu or OKC Harden, then I wouldn't have so viciously disagreed with you. I was pointing out the fact that people have a negative connotation about IT being a 6th man because the guys who generally prop that viewpoint up make player comparisons that completely demean IT's impact. Again Crawford isn't anywhere close to what I want and expect from IT. No one should.

I think OKC would had eventually put all three guys out there together to start games. It would be pretty hard to guard those guys spaced out on the floor.

[vjcsmoke]

Can we stop the trade IT, he's just an average guard?  LOL. 42 points on the biggest stage, and we're not right back in the series.  IT all-star selection wasn't a fluke.  He brought it tonight!!  Look at the list of Celtics who have scored 40+ in postseason, a lot of special players on that list and IT just joined them tonight!

[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.

Being a 6th man isn't a bad thing depending on the situation. The issue is there is a segment of the fanbase that is essentially wishing that IT is 'put' into his rightful place on the bench and they hide it behind excuses like Crawford and Williams or whoever else is just a far worse player than IT.

If the Celtics went out there and added two 20+ PPG guys to the perimeter and wings, which I think is overkill honestly, I would be in favor of moving IT to the bench. I think having three 20+ PPG guys on a team (let alone just a five man lineup) is overkill. That's why it was fine when a guy like Harden came off the bench with Westbrook and Durant ahead of him or Manu off the bench with Parkee and Duncan in the starting lineup. If we had that type of team, then sure I don't think mixing it up would be a bad thing.

It's when I hear comparisons to guys like Crawford, Williams, Lou Williams, etc that grind my gears and probably some others. Those guys can't even close.

Maybe you should reread what I've written objectively, because I'm not arguing anything other than what you just put...

You actually are just by mentioning Mo Williams and Jamal Crawford relative to IT.

If your comparison had mentioned Manu or OKC Harden, then I wouldn't have so viciously disagreed with you. I was pointing out the fact that people have a negative connotation about IT being a 6th man because the guys who generally prop that viewpoint up make player comparisons that completely demean IT's impact. Again Crawford isn't anywhere close to what I want and expect from IT. No one should.

Sigh. No, I just don't feel like wasting my time with people who are going to manipulate my post just to try and win and argument.

Why don't you look at what I said again. Did I ever say that IT was similar to those players? No.

The OP basically said "this guy is now an All-Star and led us to victory with a 40 point game - so stop with the sixth man talk." The entire point of me bringing up Williams and Crawford was to show that sixth men do put up big numbers like that all of the time, so it's a fallacious argument to argue that he's not a sixth man because he led us to victory with a 40 point game.

That's all I ever did in the post. You guys are the ones who took that as a comparison and ran with it. So, again, I'm tired of beating a dead horse with you guys when some people just want to win an argument and manipulate what others said to do so...

[jambr380]

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...

yes, we should - kevin mchale was 6th man of the year twice ('83-84, '84-85) - and bill walton once ('85-86).

thank you kstar, beat me to the post. a tp for you and your memory.

Eh, we can re-visit this argument when we have one of the most best teams in NBA history. Until then, our playmaking PG who also happens to be a dominant scorer can remain a starter. I know he's short, but people will eventually get over it...I think.

[oldtype]

I mean, yeah sure he'd "ideally" be a six man. The "ideal" team being one in which he's backing up Steph Curry and James Harden as our starting backcourt. That's not the team we have though.

The real question isn't what he'd be ideally, but if he'd capable of being a starting PG on an actual contender. Don't think that there's any question that he could based off his performance as a starter this year.

[DarkAzcura]

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.

Being a 6th man isn't a bad thing depending on the situation. The issue is there is a segment of the fanbase that is essentially wishing that IT is 'put' into his rightful place on the bench and they hide it behind excuses like Crawford and Williams or whoever else is just a far worse player than IT.

If the Celtics went out there and added two 20+ PPG guys to the perimeter and wings, which I think is overkill honestly, I would be in favor of moving IT to the bench. I think having three 20+ PPG guys on a team (let alone just a five man lineup) is overkill. That's why it was fine when a guy like Harden came off the bench with Westbrook and Durant ahead of him or Manu off the bench with Parkee and Duncan in the starting lineup. If we had that type of team, then sure I don't think mixing it up would be a bad thing.

It's when I hear comparisons to guys like Crawford, Williams, Lou Williams, etc that grind my gears and probably some others. Those guys can't even close.

Maybe you should reread what I've written objectively, because I'm not arguing anything other than what you just put...

You actually are just by mentioning Mo Williams and Jamal Crawford relative to IT.

If your comparison had mentioned Manu or OKC Harden, then I wouldn't have so viciously disagreed with you. I was pointing out the fact that people have a negative connotation about IT being a 6th man because the guys who generally prop that viewpoint up make player comparisons that completely demean IT's impact. Again Crawford isn't anywhere close to what I want and expect from IT. No one should.

Sigh. No, I just don't feel like wasting my time with people who are going to manipulate my post just to try and win and argument.

Why don't you look at what I said again. Did I ever say that IT was similar to those players? No.

The OP basically said "this guy is now an All-Star and led us to victory with a 40 point game - so stop with the sixth man talk." The entire point of me bringing up Williams and Crawford was to show that sixth men do put up big numbers like that all of the time, so it's a fallacious argument to argue that he's not a sixth man because he led us to victory with a 40 point game.

That's all I ever did in the post. You guys are the ones who took that as a comparison and ran with it. So, again, I'm tired of beating a dead horse with you guys when some people just want to win an argument and manipulate what others said to do so...

I didn't manipulate what you said. You are the one who said you would love to have IT in Crawford's role. How is that not a direct comparison? I ain't twisting one word of yours. Your comparisons just weren't great and you asked why there was a negative connotation against it. I explained why, and it was directly related to the comparisons you made.

[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.

If he played with better shooters he would have more space to operate. He would be pretty tough to stop if the defense had to legitimately worry about two other all stars.

Your vehement, uncompromising defense of IT at all costs is the perfect example of what falsificationism was developed to combat. Read some Karl Popper, brah.

[jpotter33]

I mean, yeah sure he'd "ideally" be a six man. The "ideal" team being one in which he's backing up Steph Curry and James Harden as our starting backcourt. That's not the team we have though.

The real question isn't what he'd be ideally, but if he'd capable of being a starting PG on an actual contender. Don't think that there's any question that he could based off his performance as a starter this year.

This isn't a very persuasive argument, though, because you can build any team to make most players with any one particularly strong skill (whatever it is) a starter on that team. For example, Andre Roberson is a starter on a contending team - but what does that really tell us? Nothing.