|
Bashez posted:Ibaka has one of the better Blk/36 and foul/36 ratios in the last 15 years for a "shot blocker". (Hint: he plays for OKC!!!!) Some of this may be team bias, as you suggest, but most of it is that he's an awful defender who doesn't make contact or contest shots in a meaningful way except weakside blocks, which are unlikely to produce fouls, relatively speaking.
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2012 02:15 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2013 18:21 |
|
|
He might not do much on defense other than block shots, but he is having a historically-good season for blocking shots.
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2012 03:20 |
|
|
kingcobweb posted:He might not do much on defense other than block shots, but he is having a historically-good season for blocking shots. Yeah he is super, super good at getting weakside blocks, which isn't nothing. It's worth noting just how different his role on the defense is than Mourning and Bol's, though. I don't remember anything about McIlvaine so.
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2012 04:23 |
|
|
DeimosRising posted:Yeah he is super, super good at getting weakside blocks, which isn't nothing. It's worth noting just how different his role on the defense is than Mourning and Bol's, though. I don't remember anything about McIlvaine so. You mean the 35 million dollar man, Jim McIlvaine?
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2012 04:44 |
|
|
McIlvaine would get some cheap blocks from simply being tall, play statue defense, get dunked on, then cash his paycheck. He's also the reason Shawn Kemp ended up getting traded away. He'd give you like 15 minutes before you realized he's terrible and can't play with anyone on the court but he'd get 2 blocks from simply being in the right spot. He was so, so terrible. I mean, he was a backup on an awful Bullets team and ended up getting a huge contract from a contender
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2012 05:54 |
|
|
dokmo posted:He's really bad.
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2012 10:17 |
|
|
Jack's Flow posted:I've been trying to convince two of my friends of that for months... to no avail. They look at me like I am crazy when I try to point out that he's just a guy who gambles on blocks and is out of position very, very often. I mean, it's not like he's a lovely player or "not that good". He does exactly what they want him to do. Before OKC picked up Perkins, Ibaka was the defensive anchor at C and had to guard ISOs in the post and poo poo, which didn't work for obvious reasons (he is not a great man-to-man defender). Acquiring Perkins was designed to provide a legitimate post defender at C, and allow Ibaka to play PF and roam around, where he can afford to go up for those weakside blocks, as well as provide some modicum of scoring, which is mostly what he did in Spain before getting to the NBA. He didn't even start developing himself as a 'defensive guy' until he got drafted to the Thunder and realized that not only was his strength as a scorer completely inadequate and redundant on that squad, but that he'd be better suited attempting to contribute in other ways. Plus he's 22. So, it's hard to say. You're absolutely right that Ibaka is in no way DPOY, nor is he at all an elite defender. He is a guy who's excellent at getting weakside blocks though, which isn't exactly easy, and has cultivated that skill as a function of it being what he's expected to do. Your friends are wrong, but I don't know if saying "he's just a guy who gambles on blocks and is often out of position" is really an accurate statement to be making, since it's not like Brooks is on the sideline pulling his hair because Ibaka is loving up, he's doing what he's supposed to do and cultivating a really specific skillset. Whether that's a good idea from a coaching/team perspective... I dunno, but it is what it is. Anyway, what I find interesting about Ibaka is that, like I said, he's still a really raw player. He came over having one skillset (that would've been totally inadequate by NBA standards anyway), and basically abandoned it to cultivate another based on the team he was drafted to. And with Perkins, his function is primarily as a weak-side shot blocker for a team with a strong defensive center. If the Thunder have to give up either Ibaka or Harden in a couple years, which they almost certainly will, in the likelihood that they let Ibaka go, I wonder what his value will be given the specificity of his skillset, or if his particular success and how high GMs reportedly are on him as a "defensive anchor" or "X factor player" will lead them to take artificially inflate his value. That's all assuming of course that the Thunder do have the option to only give up Ibaka or Harden, and choose Ibaka. I assume Presti has the common sense to realize the insane disparity in that choice.
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2012 12:04 |
|
|
Mandrel posted:Anyway, what I find interesting about Ibaka is that, like I said, he's still a really raw player. He came over having one skillset (that would've been totally inadequate by NBA standards anyway), and basically abandoned it to cultivate another based on the team he was drafted to. And with Perkins, his function is primarily as a weak-side shot blocker for a team with a strong defensive center. If the Thunder have to give up either Ibaka or Harden in a couple years, which they almost certainly will, in the likelihood that they let Ibaka go, I wonder what his value will be given the specificity of his skillset, or if his particular success and how high GMs reportedly are on him as a "defensive anchor" or "X factor player" will lead them to take artificially inflate his value. I mean, Samuel Dalembert has received some really nice contracts based on his ability to block shots from the weakside and only recently figured out how to not be completely awful at defense, so I'm sure he'll acquire a decent contract. Ideally, he'd fall on a team that has a good post defender but could use his athleticism to intimidate players in the paint.
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2012 15:46 |
|
|
I like Ibaka more than most here, I guess, but I am confused when people try to make a big deal out of OKC MUST CHOOSE BETWEEN IBAKA AND HARDEN! It'd obviously be nice if they could keep both, but that's not really that difficult of a choice if they have to make it.
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2012 15:49 |
|
|
morestuff posted:I like Ibaka more than most here, I guess, but I am confused when people try to make a big deal out of OKC MUST CHOOSE BETWEEN IBAKA AND HARDEN! It'd obviously be nice if they could keep both, but that's not really that difficult of a choice if they have to make it. Oh no, it shouldn't be at all, and I think Presti is smart enough to see how obvious it is. But NBA GMs are notoriously stupid, and in surveys of GMs and various management guys around the NBA, a lot more favor Ibaka over Harden. Those quotes I posted about him being the defensive anchor and the team's "X factor" were literally quotes from one "anonymous eastern conference GM". There really shouldn't be any debate whatsover between Harden and Ibaka, but an awful lot of folks in the league are higher over him than they have any right to be, and that's why these things are never as easy in the NBA as they should be.
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2012 16:01 |
|
|
If they don't want Harden, I can think of 29 other teams that could use the best 6th man in the league
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2012 16:04 |
|
|
For what it's worth bigs like Ibaka are usually more rare. I'd rather have Harden too, but it's more expensive to find a mediocre big to replace Ibaka than a mediocre wing to replace Harden. (Note: I don't think Harden is mediocre, just saying what it would cost to replace with someone ok) OKC should try and figure out how to keep both though.
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2012 16:06 |
|
|
Why in the world wouldn't OKC be able to keep both? Do Bird rights no longer exist or something? Does OKC not have enough money to go into the tax?
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2012 16:15 |
|
|
Declan MacManus posted:If they don't want Harden, I can think of 29 other teams that could use the best 6th man in the league He's getting a TS% of .657 at above-average usage. That is ridiculous. The last guard with TS% that high and above-average usage was Nash in 06-07.
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2012 16:23 |
|
|
Lockback posted:For what it's worth bigs like Ibaka are usually more rare. I'd rather have Harden too, but it's more expensive to find a mediocre big to replace Ibaka than a mediocre wing to replace Harden. They can get the Birdman for free
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2012 16:26 |
|
|
Mechafunkzilla posted:Why in the world wouldn't OKC be able to keep both? Do Bird rights no longer exist or something? Does OKC not have enough money to go into the tax? Tax has become very punitive and gets more punitive the longer you stay in it, iirc. Having 2 max players and 2 others signed to large contracts will have the owner paying more money than he would probably be comfortable with.
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2012 16:47 |
|
|
OKC doesn't have the revenue streams of LA or NYK or anything, so they are likely going to need to tighten their belts eventually.
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2012 17:08 |
|
|
Next summer is when the big BRI crunch hits, and there will be much schadenfreude in seeing how different teams handle it.
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2012 17:15 |
|
|
The Lakers, who get upwards in the 20 billions in TV contracts, are afraid of the new tax hits. OKC is definitely shedding Ibaka if he costs too much, but they could throw whatever euro 7 footer every year with a Harden/Westbrook/Durant core or draft the best rebounder that isn't a lottery pick.
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2012 17:58 |
|
|
They'd probably be better off, too.
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2012 18:03 |
|
|
I for one think OKC should get rid of Harden post haste.
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2012 18:38 |
|
|
Ross posted:I for one think OKC should get rid of Harden post haste. Harden for Deng and a first After Presti dies of laughter, forge his signature on the papers approving the trade
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2012 19:44 |
|
|
The Wizards would gladly take Harden off OKCs hands 
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2012 20:00 |
|
|
Harden for Landry Fields. Two rising young shooting guards, everybody wins
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2012 20:04 |
|
|
Ross posted:I for one think OKC should get rid of Harden post haste. Why on earth would you think this.
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2012 20:10 |
|
|
mks5000 posted:Why on earth would you think this. Because he doesn't like OKC 
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2012 20:13 |
|
|
No Safe Word posted:Because he doesn't like OKC Bulls fan, and the one position the Bulls are missing is _________
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2012 20:20 |
|
|
Declan MacManus posted:Bulls fan, and the one position the Bulls are missing is _________ Limb grafter?
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2012 20:23 |
|
|
BIZORT posted:They operated on it and realized afterwards what they had done so they gave everyone on the roster some hush money and told them to never mention it. Nick said that since everyone from that time was gone from the organization, he felt fine about telling the story. How would they get away with paying hush money? Wouldn't that be circumventing the salary cap? Also this playoff commercial http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8aScAoVh0c got me wondering. Have the Thunder technically won a championship from the Sonics era? Does anyone care and if not why didn't they leave that behind like the Sonic name and colors when they left?
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2012 14:44 |
|
|
Milfay posted:How would they get away with paying hush money? Wouldn't that be circumventing the salary cap? Technically yes they own the Sonics championship. But I dont think anyone sees it that way. When Clay Bennet bought the team, he had complete intentions to move them to Oklahoma and lose any reference to the Sonics. I read something the other day that Seattle owns the Sonics name/identity? They were saying if they can get another team they would be the Sonics again. After the settlement, it was like a divorce and they split up the Sonics assets between Bennet and I guess Seattle? streetlamp fucked around with this message at Apr 25, 2012 around 15:25 |
| # ? Apr 25, 2012 15:21 |
|
|
streetlamp posted:Technically yes they own the Sonics championship. But I dont think anyone sees it that way. The Sonics Championship Banner is in a museum in Seattle currently. I believe franchise records went to OKC but the name Somics stayed in Seattle.
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2012 19:58 |
|
|
The Thunder have sweet gently caress all to do with the Seattle Supersonics apart from the initial roster and it is incredibly bizarre that they should take recognition for anything that happened prior to the relocation.
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2012 00:57 |
|
|
Speewah posted:The Thunder have sweet gently caress all to do with the Seattle Supersonics apart from the initial roster and it is incredibly bizarre that they should take recognition for anything that happened prior to the relocation. That initial roster included Kevin Durant and Russell Westbrook, hth
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2012 01:10 |
|
|
Declan MacManus posted:That initial roster included Kevin Durant and Russell Westbrook, hth And the GM
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2012 01:45 |
|
|
Mandrel posted:And the GM Without those three pieces though the Thunder would not be good.
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2012 01:53 |
|
|
Spacebump posted:Without those three pieces though the Thunder would not be good. Well, yeah. Wait, what are we talking about?
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2012 01:55 |
|
|
Mandrel posted:Well, yeah. Wait, what are we talking about? The Thunder's success being related to decisions made in Seattle.
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2012 02:00 |
|
|
Westbrook is as much a Sonic as Kobe is a Hornet, or Francis a Grizzly. It just seems wrong to me to go down the shared history route. Perkins couldn't wear the number he had with the Celtics because it was retired for Thunder legend Jack Sikma. On TV they flashed an infographic showing the Thunders all-time post-season record against the Nuggets, despite it being only the second year they had made it to the playoffs and their first series against Denver. They may not be an expansion team but the Thunder should not claim 40 years of history as their own.
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2012 02:02 |
|
|
do you also feel this way about every other team relocation/renaming that has taken place in the hundred-plus years of north american professional sports
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2012 02:10 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2013 18:21 |
|
|
the thunder is our team, ours and no one elses their dignified 4 years of existence is a testament to that, okay E: Misread your posts so I'll stop being a jokeman. It's silly to pretend that the Sonics just suddenly up and vanished one day, because players that were drafted (and signed) by the Sonics are still in the NBA, and there is a shared history there. Of course, anything they do now becomes the history of the Thunder, and if Seattle ever gets another NBA team, they'll inherit the history of the Sonics and it'll be shared between two teams and okay I see what you're getting at Declan MacManus fucked around with this message at Apr 26, 2012 around 02:13 |
| # ? Apr 26, 2012 02:11 |
|
