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.
So before Lebron joined Irving, would you have said Irving would be an ideal 6th man just because he hasn't proven it yet? Why not wait until we get a better player or two on the team before we decide IT's fate if you'd like him to prove it before he gets sent to the bench. I don't see how being the number 1 option on a team that won close to 50 games isn't proof enough that he is plenty capable of being a high level starter on a contender. Anyway, we have plenty of USG stats, touch time stats, and dribbling numbers to show how quickly IT gets his shots. Almost 20-30% of Irving's shots come off a touch time of greater than 6 seconds which actually shows that he is probably better suited coming off the bench because he doesn't know how to play within the flow of the offense. IT? It's like 10%. These are greater indicators of who is better suited for a certain role and who isn't. That's why I got on you. You are making qualitative arguments in a discussion that can be controlled by statistics if you know where to look. You haven't used any numbers to show why you think what you think, and apparently I'm not allowed to comment on any player comparisons you made. How is anyone even supposed to approach having a discussion with you if we aren't allowed to take your comparisons seriously and exactly?
Also Irving and Lillard are absolutely defensive liabilities. Especially Irving. Of the four, I think Lillard, Jackson, and Thomas would be best as starters because they can run an offense and play within the flow of the game. Irving cannot, and I think he would be best served off the bench in a Harden or Manu role, but it will never happen...
All four of these guys are essentially seives on defense at times (Jackson being the best when he is focused most likely), so I find it kind of meaningless to use defense as a reason to send IT to the bench. To be honest I'm pretty sure IT actually closes out and covers shooters better than all 4 when you look at the numbers. I'd have to double check.
I think the argument is more like....
Guys like Jamal Crawford, Mo Williams, etc. are much better suited to the 6th man role. They require lots of ISO plays and simple P&R's. Surrounding them with other players who need the ball in their hands (ala Evan Turner), is generally harmful. Those guys may be decent/capable passers, but they're not exactly playmakers. They can be super helpful in building a great team. Some may even perform well in a starting role with a playmaking 3 like LeBron to initiate offense. But counting on them to not only score the vast majority of your points but also run an intricate pace and space offense that emphasizes ball movement isn't gonna work.
I think IT has proven this year that he doesn't belong in this category. Could he be a super 6th man? Sure. So could a lot of guys. But Isaiah has proven this year that he's the engine that drives the offense. He directly creates a ton of open looks for other players, he's proven himself to have upper- level passing skills. You could never run an entire winning season of offense through a guy like Mo Williams. But you can through IT.
I think that's the difference people are trying to highlight.
Bingo.
Topic: Can we please stop calling IT a 6th man? (Read 6717 times)