Marvin bashing is getting old, unwarranted, and hypocritical

[Diesel]

I have to say this, Marvin can't create his own shot but majority of SF's can't and some of them who can avg. 17 ppg. Danny Granger cannot create his own shot consistently and he average 20+ ppg. Sometimes who your around matters and Marvin is still learning the game. This is only his 5th year at SF. It can take some time especially when confidence isn't easily gained.

Let me take this one.

Marvin plays the easiest position in basketball. There's no learning curve for Sf. Right now, if you're 6'8" and can run and jump you can play Starting SF for any team in the league. Historically, Sf was the place where you put your worst defender. Historically, it was the place you put your least skilled player. Every other position has a skill attached to it.

PG = run the offense.; Guard the backcourt.

SG = Shoot.; Guard the perimeter.

PF = Some High post or low Post offense/defense.

C= Low post or high post offense/defense.

The second thing. Granger does know how to create his own scoring. ARE YOU KIDDING ME.

[Joker]

Let me take this one.

Marvin plays the easiest position in basketball. There's no learning curve for Sf. Right now, if you're 6'8" and can run and jump you can play Starting SF for any team in the league. Historically, Sf was the place where you put your worst defender. Historically, it was the place you put your least skilled player. Every other position has a skill attached to it.

PG = run the offense.; Guard the backcourt.

SG = Shoot.; Guard the perimeter.

PF = Some High post or low Post offense/defense.

C= Low post or high post offense/defense.

The second thing. Granger does know how to create his own scoring. ARE YOU KIDDING ME.

There is a major learning curve for ANY position in the NBA, especially one you have never played before on any level. SG was the place you put your worst defender, SF was the most versatile of all the players. SF= Jack of all trades and usually the most athletic plus good size. Granger, gets a lot of set shots and shots off picks. That's not shot creation. Bibby used to could do that. Odom can create his shot, Bonzi Wells used to be able to create his own shot. Captain Jack can create his own shot. Even Corey M. can create his own shot. Diesel, you know basketball to well to be this wrong, this one not even about Marvin, just about the position.

[jhay610]

I'm glad that you can find the flaws in some of the guys I named, but yet, you can't find the flaws In Marvin?

Wally and Donyell are a billion years old, yet for the vet Min, they can both produce more than Marvin.

Larry Hughes is a guard and Joe can play 3. And for the vet min, he will outproduce Marvin.

Juilus Hodges may be a poor man's Tyrus Thomas but for the vet Min, he will outproduce Marvin.

Gerald Green is not a poor Man's SMoove... But he would out produce Marvin for the vet Min.

This is a wild post even for you.

[jhay610]

I have to wonder, what's your agenda here?

And so a new friendship was struck between the pot and the kettle.

[Diesel]

And so a new friendship was struck between the pot and the kettle.

What most people don't understand about the pot is that he always knew that he was black......

The kettle on the otherhand was running around thinking he was still shiny.

Sometimes, there's a need for a moment of truth, even if it's the pot that has to bring it.

[jhay610]

What most people don't understand about the pot is that he always knew that he was black......

The kettle on the otherhand was running around thinking he was still shiny.

Sometimes, there's a need for a moment of truth, even if it's the pot that has to bring it.

Well-played. Touche.

[coachx]

Let me take this one.

Marvin plays the easiest position in basketball. There's no learning curve for Sf. Right now, if you're 6'8" and can run and jump you can play Starting SF for any team in the league. Historically, SF was the place where you put your worst defender. Historically, it was the place you put your least skilled player. Every other position has a skill attached to it.

I disagree. The SF position was one of the strongest positions in the NBA for a long, long time. Players with multiple skills man this position. That is what makes it so different from the other positions. You have to have a multitude of skill sets to star at this postion. At the other positions you can be good at only thing and still be a star.

Havlicek

Baylor

Barry

Dr. J

Gervin played some SF

B. King

English

Bird

Worthy

Dominique

Barkley when young, played SF

Pippen

KG played SF for his early years at 7'

Dirk played SF for his early years at 7'

These were some of the most skilled and versatile players of all time who were SFs. In todays game you have stud SFs every where. It is one of the most demanding positions in the NBA. Especially on the defensive end.

Edited March 4, 2010 by coachx

[MVP23]

What most people don't understand about the pot is that he always knew that he was black......

The kettle on the otherhand was running around thinking he was still shiny.

Sometimes, there's a need for a moment of truth, even if it's the pot that has to bring it.

20/8...

[AHF]

Well-played. Touche.

If this is intended to mean that Diesel recognizes he has always had an anti-Marvin agenda (which was implied by the original pot/kettle comment) and that he now needs to bring to light my agenda on Marvin (i.e., my "black" to the pot's black) then I am a bit confused about what my Marvin agenda is. If I am the kettle to the pot, then I need some clarification on the nature of my agenda before I can understand this one.

My point was that Marvin's draft status is irrelevant to any 2010 discussion of him other than a discussion of what we would do if we could turn back time and control Knight's decision on draft day.

[Duff_Man]

What years did Barkley play SF early with Philly? Maybe he shifted a when they had Mahorn (Thump N Bump!), Barkley and Gilliam on the floor at the same time.

[Diesel]

If this is intended to mean that Diesel recognizes he has always had an anti-Marvin agenda (which was implied by the original pot/kettle comment) and that he now needs to bring to light my agenda on Marvin (i.e., my "black" to the pot's black) then I am a bit confused about what my Marvin agenda is. If I am the kettle to the pot, then I need some clarification on the nature of my agenda before I can understand this one.

My point was that Marvin's draft status is irrelevant to any 2010 discussion of him other than a discussion of what we would do if we could turn back time and control Knight's decision on draft day.

This means that I do have expectations of Marvin based on what we have already invested in him. I don't think his effort meets our investment and I believe that he is the most excused player in basketball. That's my black. Your agenda seemingly is to make light of the expectations and to try to write them off as some type of baseless agenda. I called you out simply because your agenda requires that you ignore the facts and sometimes even re-order and change the emphasis of what I have said (like you did a few pages back).

[AHF]

This means that I do have expectations of Marvin based on what we have already invested in him. I don't think his effort meets our investment and I believe that he is the most excused player in basketball. That's my black. Your agenda seemingly is to make light of the expectations and to try to write them off as some type of baseless agenda. I called you out simply because your agenda requires that you ignore the facts and sometimes even re-order and change the emphasis of what I have said (like you did a few pages back).

There is no reason to ever bring up draft status in discussions about 2010 Marvin. It doesn't matter anymore. The 2005 draft is a sunk cost. My reordering of your post did nothing to distort your repeated insistence on reviewing the sunk cost of the #2 draft pick (highest draft pick in franchise history, other than our 3 #1 picks!! passed over better players!!) when there is nothing to be done about it. You talked about more than that, but this is an isolated issue.

In contrast, holding Marvin to account based on current expectations is totally legit. Holding him up to his current pay level is totally legit - that is the only relevant investment.

I have no problem seeing you discuss Marvin in 2010. I will admit to being tired of rehashing the draft - especially when you say you no longer blame him for 2005. When you bring up the draft in the same post, I find it hard to believe you no longer blame him for 2005. If you no longer blame him for 2005, then there is no more reason to bring the draft back up anymore than it is to get upset at Joe Smith because he is a former #1 overall pick who stinks for us this year. The fact that he was drafted by another team doesn't matter - the draft choice is a sunk cost that has zero relevance today regardless of who pulled the trigger in the draft. Who cares where he was drafted? All that matters is what we expect of him in 2010 and what we are paying him to do on his current contract. The same applies to Marvin.

You have plenty of ammo to bash Marvin's play this year (although not his recent play so much) without reaching back to 2005.

Edited March 4, 2010 by AHF

[Diesel]

I disagree. The SF position was one of the strongest positions in the NBA for a long, long time. Players with multiple skills man this position. That is what makes it so different from the other positions. You have to have a multitude of skill sets to star at this postion. At the other positions you can be good at only thing and still be a star.

Havlicek

Baylor

Barry

Dr. J

Gervin played some SF

B. King

English

Bird

Worthy

Dominique

Barkley when young, played SF

Pippen

KG played SF for his early years at 7'

Dirk played SF for his early years at 7'

These were some of the most skilled and versatile players of all time who were SFs. In todays game you have stud SFs every where. It is one of the most demanding positions in the NBA. Especially on the defensive end.

Again, you have to recognize that all of these guys were scorers. What great skillsets were there aside from scoring.

Only Worthy was an accomplished defensvie player.

Bird was a good passer.

Barkley and Baylor were good rebouners.

When you get into the Pippen Years, you're talking about a difference in the position. Pippen was a "Point" Forward. He was classified that because he was one of the first guys that the offense was actually run through i.e. he had the skillset of a PG.

KG and Dirk are definitely exceptions to what you mostly see in the position. AS a matter of fact, KG was place at Sf because he was too skinny to play the natural position of PF his first few years.

Again, it doesn't require a great skillset to be a Sf.

Do this coach.

Ask any coach what is the easiest position to teach.

Better yet. Go back into the drafts and see what position develops the quickest.

1. You know it's not PG. PG is hard.

2. Centers develop very slowly.

3. SGs have to master shooting and floor position.

4. PFs have to master high post and low post.

5. SF. The wing. Easiest to learn. Requires nothing but being able to run, jump, shoot, and pass.

[Diesel]

You should never bring up draft status if it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter anymore. The draft is a sunk cost. My reordering of your post did nothing to distort your repeated insistence on reviewing the sunk cost of the #2 draft pick when there is nothing to be done about it.

Holding Marvin to current expectations is totally legit. Holding him up to his current pay level is totally legit - that is the only relevant investment.

I have no problem seeing you discuss Marvin in 2010. I will admit to being tired of rehashing the draft - especially when you say you no longer blame him for 2005. If you no longer blame him for 2005, then there is no reason to bring the draft back up anymore than it is to get upset at Joe Smith because he is a former #1 overall pick. Who cares? All that matters is what we expect of him in 2010 and what we are paying him on his current contract. The same applies to Marvin.

Again, you're at your agenda. I never mentioned Draft. I said investment.

Investments like trading players to make space.

Investments like making him a starter when he's not the best player.

Investments like a 2nd contract that we were forced to give.

The only time I mention the draft is to show how our organization has used the draft to justify these other Investment.

You have to understand that the draft has two prongs (if you will).

I don't care about missing Paul and Deron and a bunch of other players. That's opportunity gone. I'm more concerned with the stuff that's going on now... like the forced 2nd contract. Had we been under the cap significantly and Marvin been an 18 pick, I doubt that we would have given him a second contract. That's the ramification of us drafting him that I'm concerned about. Not who we missed out on.

On that late parting shot of yours. I want you to look around. I have had plenty of Ammo to bash Marvin with this year... But look around. HOW many topics have I started bashing Marvin? Have I started 1 since 2010? What I have done is just point out the truth to people who refuse to see it. Marvin has 2 good games and people start talking as if the other 50 something games we have played were warm ups.

Edited March 4, 2010 by Diesel

[AHF]

Again, you're at your agenda. I never mentioned Draft. I said investment.

Really? I'll tell you where I see draft for the millionth time:

But was drafted higher than everybody else on the team and in the franchise's history.

On the other items:

Investments like trading players to make space.

Sunk costs outside of his control - except in the case of Chills where we can still bring him back in which case I don't mind hearing arguments for giving away Marvin and installing Chills. The 2010 notion of whether we should bring back Chillz has nothing to do with where Marvin was drafted and Al Harrington is not walking through that door.

Investments like making him a starter when he's not the best player.

That is either a sunk cost (for starting him in the past) or a legit debate on Crawford/Marvin/Bibby as the one who should be starting off the bench. In any case, it has nothing to do with where Marvin was drafted so there is no need to mention it.

Investments like a 2nd contract that we were forced to give.

Totally legit topic and totally irrelevant to where Marvin was drafted.

The only time I mention the draft is to show how our organization has used the draft to justify these other Investment.

The draft has nothing to do with whether any 2010 decision makes sense. The 2nd contract was one you endorsed as a way not to lose Marvin for nothing and I highly doubt you made that statement because of your healthy respect for Marvin's draft slot.

The draft is just not relevant and mentioning how high Marvin was picked adds nothing to your points, IMO. It does however serve to rehash the arguments we have heard ad nauseum for 5 years.

Edited March 4, 2010 by AHF

[Diesel]

Really? I'll tell you where I see draft for the millionth time:

On the other items:

Sunk costs outside of his control - except in the case of Chills where we can still bring him back in which case I don't mind hearing arguments for giving away Marvin and installing Chills. The 2010 notion of whether we should bring back Chillz has nothing to do with where Marvin was drafted and Al Harrington is not walking through that door.

That is either a sunk cost (for starting him in the past) or a legit debate on Crawford/Marvin/Bibby as the one who should be starting off the bench. In any case, it has nothing to do with where Marvin was drafted so there is no need to mention it.

Totally legit topic and totally irrelevant to where Marvin was drafted.

The draft has nothing to do with whether any 2010 decision makes sense. The 2nd contract was one you endorsed as a way not to lose Marvin for nothing and I highly doubt you made that statement because of your healthy respect for Marvin's draft slot.

The draft is just not relevant and mentioning how high Marvin was picked adds nothing to your points, IMO. It does however serve to rehash the arguments we have heard ad nauseum for 5 years.

You say sunk cost... but with all these sunken cost, there's expectation on Marvin.. Not his fault, but still his responsibility.

If I'm hired at a fortune 500 company and they clear out a whole department to make sure I'm paid and that I have everything I need to succeed...

It's not my fault that all the people were fired, but you best damn believe that it will be my responsibility to live up to what the company did to get me.

With Marvin...

Same thing.

That means that if I'm at my fortune 500 company and I play Dig Dug all day and get the minimum done.. that means that when my supervisor (or CEO) comes around, he's not going to look at me and say... "Oh, it's not his fault that the guy who hired him is a moron. We'll let him slide a few more years and see if we can get more out of his potential.".

However, it's funny that when we start to talk about Marvin and all the investments we have made for him... the agenda is to say SUNK COST. NOT HIS FAULT... Is basketball the only place in the world that this works? Maybe I will find my table top dig dug game.

[spotatl]

Deisel- I don't think you get the concept of sunk cost. Sunk cost means that the proper way to do things is to ignore what you paid for it and only look at the value they give. So in your example by treating you as a sunk cost you would get fired as soon as you start slacking off no matter what happened before that. Your example is why the sunk cost idea is important.

It doesn't matter what the Hawks used to acquire Marvin- thats in the past. He shoudl only be judged on what he is doing now. Its not his fault he was drafted too high. It doesn't mean he has extra superduper responsibilities.

[Diesel]

Deisel- I don't think you get the concept of sunk cost. Sunk cost means that the proper way to do things is to ignore what you paid for it and only look at the value they give. So in your example by treating you as a sunk cost you would get fired as soon as you start slacking off no matter what happened before that. Your example is why the sunk cost idea is important.

It doesn't matter what the Hawks used to acquire Marvin- thats in the past. He shoudl only be judged on what he is doing now. Its not his fault he was drafted too high. It doesn't mean he has extra superduper responsibilities.

Thanks for clarifying.. however,

Do you think that concept really fits what's going on with Marvin?

Doesn't Marvin still start?

Didn't Marvin still start last year after we found out that he was easily replacable.

Didn't we still give him a second contract while knowing that Having Flip Murray playing 2 and Joe playing 3 was more effective?

Maybe it was a misuse of the concept of sunk cost because it's really not being applied in Marvin's case.

[jhay610]

If this is intended to mean that Diesel recognizes he has always had an anti-Marvin agenda (which was implied by the original pot/kettle comment) and that he now needs to bring to light my agenda on Marvin (i.e., my "black" to the pot's black) then I am a bit confused about what my Marvin agenda is. If I am the kettle to the pot, then I need some clarification on the nature of my agenda before I can understand this one.

My point was that Marvin's draft status is irrelevant to any 2010 discussion of him other than a discussion of what we would do if we could turn back time and control Knight's decision on draft day.

Poor choice of metaphor on my part as I was only looking at it from one side -- that being how hypocritical it would be of Diesel to start throwing around accusations of agendas, given his history regarding Marvin. I did not intend to imply support of his claim against you.

[niremetal]

Thanks for clarifying.. however,

Do you think that concept really fits what's going on with Marvin?

Doesn't Marvin still start?

Didn't Marvin still start last year after we found out that he was easily replacable.

Didn't we still give him a second contract while knowing that Having Flip Murray playing 2 and Joe playing 3 was more effective?

Maybe it was a misuse of the concept of sunk cost because it's really not being applied in Marvin's case.

Bibby/Flip/JJ/Josh/Al was more effective than Bibby/JJ/Marvin/Josh/Al. But do you know what was even more effective than either? Bibby/JJ/Marvin/Al/Zaza. I guess that means Josh is even more expendable than Marvin, huh? Please.

Sunk cost applies perfectly in Marvin's case. He is our best on-ball defender outside the post and our most versatile on-ball defender overall. We pay him a click above the league average, and you are increasingly alone in not recognizing that he's an above-average player.

You have zip, zero, nada, zilch besides BS and your personal opinions (sorry, I repeat myself) to back up your assertion that Marvin's draft position is the reason he got re-signed and the reason he keeps starting. In your warped mind, Sund was so loyal to BK's decision to draft Marvin that he handed him a 5-year extension (nevermind that he previously had traded one BK lottery pick as scrap metal) 4 years after that draft, and Woody keeps starting him for the same reason (nevermind that he shoved other lottery picks like Shelden and Acie to the end of the bench, and consistently played #17 pick Smoove more than #6 Chill starting in their second year). And the fact that we paid $20M more to a 17th pick just 1 year before Marvin's contract? Pish-tosh. Irrelevant. The fact that we signed Marvin at all proves your point, right?

Edited March 5, 2010 by niremetal