Can we please stop calling IT a 6th man?

[GetLucky]

Everyone is ideally a 6th man, unless they start for Team USA in the Olympics. The real question is whether or not Isaiah Thomas can be a starter on a perennial championship contender. I think the answer is yes.

If anyone knows how to get 3 more 20+ ppg scorers while staying within NBA salary cap constraints and fielding a capable second unit, though, there's a few GM jobs that'll be opening up in the next few years.

[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.

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.

It wasn't an uncompromising defense. It was a legitimate point, and it occurs across the league every season. Add more talent to the team and the existing talent generally becomes more effective.

[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...

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.

Crawford's role meaning sixth man. I never compared their skillset to each other, because obviously they're different players. Again, you're taking something that I said and running away with it to fit your argument, which is typical for here. Crawford's role in LA is as a scoring sixth man that runs the second unit, and that's exactly what I want for IT. Anything beyond that is you putting words in my mouth here.

[jpotter33]

Everyone is ideally a 6th man, unless they start for Team USA in the Olympics. The real question is whether or not Isaiah Thomas can be a starter on a perennial championship contender. I think the answer is yes.

If anyone knows how to get 3 more 20+ ppg scorers while staying within NBA salary cap constraints and fielding a capable second unit, though, there's a few GM jobs that'll be opening up in the next few years.

See post on bottom of page 2. That's not a persuasive argument. Case in point - Andre Roberson.

[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.

Crawford's role meaning sixth man. I never compared their skillset to each other, because obviously they're different players. Again, you're taking something that I said and running away with it to fit your argument, which is typical for here. Crawford's role in LA is as a scoring sixth man that runs the second unit, and that's exactly what I want for IT. Anything beyond that is you putting words in my mouth here.

But then...like others said..basically every player is ideal for a 6th man role with that line of logic. If you weren't making a direct comparison, what's the point? You are unlikely to find enough scoring talents to make it worth sticking IT to the bench, and that's just fine. He's a top 5-7 PG. It's okay to want to leave one of those guys in the starting lineup.

I don't know why it's on us to make a persuasive argument here. You really aren't doing that yourself if your comparisons aren't even direct comparisons. What else are you leaving people to say if your statements remain so wishy washy with cloudy comparisons?

Do you think guys like Jackson, Lillard, and Irving should come off the bench? If you do then I'll leave this be. If you don't, you aren't really being consistent.

[dannyboy35]

Some people just can't admit they were wrong on Thomas. It's not worth arguing .Great win. Carried us on his back.

[GetLucky]

Everyone is ideally a 6th man, unless they start for Team USA in the Olympics. The real question is whether or not Isaiah Thomas can be a starter on a perennial championship contender. I think the answer is yes.

If anyone knows how to get 3 more 20+ ppg scorers while staying within NBA salary cap constraints and fielding a capable second unit, though, there's a few GM jobs that'll be opening up in the next few years.

See post on bottom of page 2. That's not a persuasive argument. Case in point - Andre Roberson.

How is "but look at bad player Q starting on X team" a more valid argument than the "player X can start on a championship team and be respectable" argument? If something as simple as that is refuted as unsound logic, then your claim that "ideally, on fantasy team X, player Y would be behind player Z, and player Y would be in a more suitable role" is not valid, either.

I'll go out on a supposed limb here and say that Isaiah Thomas can be a contributing starter on a perennial championship contender as more than the one-dimensional role player that some would like to paint him as.

[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.

It wasn't an uncompromising defense. It was a legitimate point, and it occurs across the league every season. Add more talent to the team and the existing talent generally becomes more effective.

And once again sticking with your MO of taking things out of context to fit your argument.... You should probably just stop now - it's getting ridiculous.

"Your vehement, uncompromising defense of IT at all costs" doesn't mean just one post. Rather, it means his vehement, uncompromising defense of IT since joining the site. When we do well, it's because of IT. When we don't do well, it's because IT doesn't have enough help. Classic case of an unfalsifiable premise.

So, once again, stop taking what I'm saying out of context just to argue...

[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.

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.

It wasn't an uncompromising defense. It was a legitimate point, and it occurs across the league every season. Add more talent to the team and the existing talent generally becomes more effective.

And once again sticking with your MO of taking things out of context to fit your argument.... You should probably just stop now - it's getting ridiculous.

"Your vehement, uncompromising defense of IT at all costs" doesn't mean just one post. Rather, it means his vehement, uncompromising defense of IT since joining the site. When we do well, it's because of IT. When we don't do well, it's because IT doesn't have enough help. Classic case of an unfalsifiable premise.

So, once again, stop taking what I'm saying out of context just to argue...

I am not taking anything out of context. You are twisting yourself into a pretzel to fit your narrative of wanting IT to be a 6th man and holes in your logic are being found. I could point out more, especially with that ridiculous Roberson point, but it doesn't seem like you will waver on this so we can just agree to disagree like most do on the Internet I guess.

[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...

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.

Crawford's role meaning sixth man. I never compared their skillset to each other, because obviously they're different players. Again, you're taking something that I said and running away with it to fit your argument, which is typical for here. Crawford's role in LA is as a scoring sixth man that runs the second unit, and that's exactly what I want for IT. Anything beyond that is you putting words in my mouth here.

But then...like others said..basically every player is ideal for a 6th man role with that line of logic. If you weren't making a direct comparison, what's the point? You are unlikely to find enough scoring talents to make it worth sticking IT to the bench, and that's just fine. He's a top 5-7 PG. It's okay to want to leave one of those guys in the starting lineup.

I don't know why it's on us to make a persuasive argument here. You really aren't doing that yourself if your comparisons aren't even direct comparisons. What else are you leaving people to say if your statements remain so wishy washy with cloudy comparisons?

Do you think guys like Jackson, Lillard, and Irving should come off the bench? If you do then I'll leave this be. If you don't, you aren't really being consistent.

Last reply to you, because I'm not wasting any more time with this when I have a conference speech to give tomorrow that I need to be preparing for.

There's a conceptual difference between comparing a player to another player and a player's role to another player's role. I'm doing the latter, which is conceptually different than the former. I don't see what's so hard with that. I can say that I want IT to be a scoring leader of the bench mob similar to Crawford in LA without comparing IT to Crawford in any way. Again, I don't see what is so difficult with that.

And the "ideal" argument you all are trying to make is totally semantic in nature and an example of the logical fallacy of reductio ad absurdum. So, there's that...

Jackson would ideally be a sixth man, and I think his situation is very similar to IT right now. Kyrie and Damian, no, because they've both showed that they can do this on both contending teams and non-contending teams, while also being able to do it with other legitimate scoring options, too. IT and Jackson have not. They're also not the defensive liability that IT is either, which will start it's own argument. But as others have said, IT benefits by playing with three of probably the top 10 perimeter defenders in the NBA, yet he still has similar or worse defensive stats than those other three who definitely don't play with the defensive talent that IT does.

So, yeah, I think Jackson and IT are both ideally 6th men, and Lillard and Kyrie both starters.

[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.

It wasn't an uncompromising defense. It was a legitimate point, and it occurs across the league every season. Add more talent to the team and the existing talent generally becomes more effective.

And once again sticking with your MO of taking things out of context to fit your argument.... You should probably just stop now - it's getting ridiculous.

"Your vehement, uncompromising defense of IT at all costs" doesn't mean just one post. Rather, it means his vehement, uncompromising defense of IT since joining the site. When we do well, it's because of IT. When we don't do well, it's because IT doesn't have enough help. Classic case of an unfalsifiable premise.

So, once again, stop taking what I'm saying out of context just to argue...

I am not taking anything out of context. You are twisting yourself into a pretzel to fit your narrative of wanting IT to be a 6th man and holes in your logic are being found. I could point out more, especially with that ridiculous Roberson point, but it doesn't seem like you will waver on this so we can just agree to disagree like most do on the Internet I guess.

Sure, bud. You're consistently taking what I'm saying out of context and using logical fallacies as your arguments, but I'm the one twisting myself into a pretzel. 

[crownsy]

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

What on earth is wrong with a great volume scorer coming off the bench? you realize true 6th men play like 30+ minutes a night right? for guys like Crawford, Jterry in his prime, Manu, ect they were top 2 or 3 guys on there teams, they just came in to lead the second unit/ close out games.

I love IT, and right now he should be the starting PG no doubt, but if they brought in a couple superstars, and one of them happened to be a PG, no problem at all with IT getting his minutes between subbing at PG and SG. doubly so if you can get a SG who can play the SF as well.

[jpotter33]

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

What on earth is wrong with a great volume scorer coming off the bench? you realize true 6th men play like 30+ minutes a night right? for guys like Crawford, Jterry in his prime, Manu, ect they were top 2 or 3 guys on there teams, they just came in to lead the second unit/ close out games.

I love IT, and right now he should be the starting PG no doubt, but if they brought in a couple superstars, and one of them happened to be a PG, no problem at all with IT getting his minutes between subbing at PG and SG. doubly so if you can get a SG who can play the SF as well.

TP. I don't see why this is so controversial. There's absolutely nothing wrong with being a sixth man - there's even awards for it.

[jambr380]

Is IT considered [just] a volume scorer, though? Just because he is an extremely talented scorer doesn't mean he isn't also a good PG. Those arguing that IT would be ideal as a 6th man and then pointing to McHale and Havlicek just aren't being realistic. He is currently one the top PGs in the league and should be starting; if he loses a step or we somehow acquire Curry, Westbrook, or Paul, then maybe he can come off the bench.

Or he should just start passing a lot more, get his APGs up to 8-9 and average 16.5 PPG. Then maybe people will see him as a strong starting PG.

Or maybe he just needs to grow 4-5 inches. Because that is really what this is all about.

[crownsy]

I don't know man, i think you're getting way to caught up in "sixth man" as an insult or something. Right now, he's our best PG. Unless that changes (and i want IT on this team for a very long time, so by "changes" i mean they bring in a few star guards or something) i have no problem with him starting.

I just don't get posters here who act like coming off the bench to play the same amount of minutes as a starter is some sort of slight. you think the spurs gave two figs about that when they had Manu as a 6th man because they valued defense next to parker to start the game, but manu played 30+ a night every game and closed out every game?

seems like this is an issue that gets some posters to an extreme sodium level very quickly, when those of us who are saying we wouldn't mind if at some point, the needs of the team required IT to be the 6th man aren't really arguing that right now he's a great PG and deserves the spot.

For instance, the I don't really see anyone calling for Danny yo go trade for another PG or to start smart over him. We are just saying if at some point the team brings in guys who require a 6th man, then yes, i would prefer it be the guy who can score 20+ in a hurry.