quick points, than I'm going to sleep
1. I never said it was inherently good or bad to shoot free throws and not threes, I said your argument was flawed because it didn't consider FTs and the effect they have on the game. You cited a stat (easier to shoot 33% from deep than 50% from the field) I merely said that comparison was stupid because if you drive you can get points in multiple ways, which messes with the percentages.
Further, I said that if you're not shooting well, an easy way to start shooting well is to get to the line and get in rhythm, I don't think I need to back that up with stats because I'm not sure anyone who has ever played basketball would disagree.
2. The Warriors may not even run set plays, they're constantly trying to use their speed to beat their individual man, thats 1 on 1 ball, you're saying its not because they attack quickly.
3. I call "cherry picking stats" you taking the teams who shot the first, fifth, sixth, and tenth most FTs per game and using them to try say that FTs are or are not important. I'm saying, that in the course of a game if your shots aren't falling it makes basketball sense to get to the line. I don't think stat reveals everything. I also said that it makes basketball sense to attack the basket in the hopes of negatively affecting the opposing team by getting them in foul trouble. Would you argue with either of those points?
4. You ask, "if 2 equally-talented teams are playing 2 different systems, what would happen?" I would say that the team with the talented big man almost always win (again, see the history of NBA champions). Which is all I've been trying to say. Look, if your team is all midgets (the Warriors) of course I'd advise playing an insane style, taking lots of quick looks and running everywhere, but if I'm building a team, my aim is not to build the Warriors, but rather a slow-it-down team, the type of team that seems to win.
You said your plea was for "teams (like the Sixers) who can't match the Spurs or Pistons' talent to consider [a run and gun style]." I say that if they can't match their talent, it doesn't matter how they play - see the Grizz, a team which you still haven't acknowledged and ran like crazy once Barone took over - those teams need to address talent as opposed to style of play.
You say that, "just like 12 or 13 seeds in the NCAA tournament have no chance unless they hoist (and make) a ton of 3s, an average NBA team can at least compete by playing the percentages and spreading the floor to get layups and 3s." I say that until a 12 or 13 seed wins a chip, it doesn't make sense to bring them up as a standard to hold. Further, "competing" for a win is different than competing for a championship.
12 and 13 seeds, just like mediocre basketball teams, don't have a chance whatever style they play because they're not good. To me - and maybe we differ here - winning a playoff series just isn't a worthy goal. Winning it all is, and I believe that it is more likely that you win it all if you build a team in the mold of the Spurs/Pistons than if you build a team in the mold of the Suns or in the mold of the Warriors. I'm not saying that the Suns or the Warriors should try to grind it out - they don't have the personal too - I'm saying that that type of talent/style of play have never been proven to win, and they play those styles because its the only way they can.
Thursday, May 3, 2007
what?
To quote the Geico caveman, "uhhh, what?" I'm confused by your points. first off, either we aren't watching the same team or you aren't actually reading my posts. the Warriors do not play one-on-one ball, unless you mean a point guard trying to break people down and then dishing. watch the pre-Andre Miller Sixers. they played one-on-one. watch the Hawks or Celts. they play one-on-one. i'm sorry, but you're simply incorrect to put Golden State in that category. And even so, who said I'm against creating favorable 1-on-1 matchups? secondly, regardless of how they're doing it, you also can't deny that G.S. takes only 3s and dunks. that's all i'm asking for in an offense. so far tonight, G.S. has taken like 2 or 3 midrange jumpers, compared to Dallas, which has probly taken 10-15.
And "cherry picking stats?" Is that what you call citing very simple stats? You made an elaborate point about how important it is to shoot FTs and how bad it is to shoot 3s. My stats simply prove that incorrect. I'm not saying you have to shoot 3s to win, or that shooting lots of FTs is inherently bad, but given the numbers, you can't really make your argument. There is absolutely nothing wrong with shooting lots of 3s or no FTs. Also, just know that the Spurs shoot a ton of 3s and almost no FTs ... and also have a great big man and play great D. these things aren't mutually exclusive.
As for your other "points," you're a genius to point out that talent wins. That's Nobel Prize material. We obviously agree that talent wins, but a worthy argument is if 2 equally-talented teams are playing 2 different systems, what would happen? The Suns now have the talent to match the Spurs, and may very well beat them (as a sidenote, Raja sucked on his previous team, as did Diaw, which speaks more to the system than their "talent"). You're clearly right that styles like G.S. or Phoenix's haven't won champs, but come on, how many teams have run either of those styles and had the talent of a San Antonio or 90's Bulls? And remember that your two favorites are two of my prime examples of great teams that take 3s and don't shoot FTs. I'm not trying to prove causation, rather just pointing out the correlation that it's possible to do those things and still win lots of games and championships.
And "cherry picking stats?" Is that what you call citing very simple stats? You made an elaborate point about how important it is to shoot FTs and how bad it is to shoot 3s. My stats simply prove that incorrect. I'm not saying you have to shoot 3s to win, or that shooting lots of FTs is inherently bad, but given the numbers, you can't really make your argument. There is absolutely nothing wrong with shooting lots of 3s or no FTs. Also, just know that the Spurs shoot a ton of 3s and almost no FTs ... and also have a great big man and play great D. these things aren't mutually exclusive.
As for your other "points," you're a genius to point out that talent wins. That's Nobel Prize material. We obviously agree that talent wins, but a worthy argument is if 2 equally-talented teams are playing 2 different systems, what would happen? The Suns now have the talent to match the Spurs, and may very well beat them (as a sidenote, Raja sucked on his previous team, as did Diaw, which speaks more to the system than their "talent"). You're clearly right that styles like G.S. or Phoenix's haven't won champs, but come on, how many teams have run either of those styles and had the talent of a San Antonio or 90's Bulls? And remember that your two favorites are two of my prime examples of great teams that take 3s and don't shoot FTs. I'm not trying to prove causation, rather just pointing out the correlation that it's possible to do those things and still win lots of games and championships.
warriors, again
Here’s the problem, and its one of philosophies between us. I believe that an NBA team's only goal should be championship, you believe that their goal should always constanst slight improvement. I don’t think that a team like Golden State can win the championship, and if I’m proven wrong (I hope I am) I believe that that team would be an aberration – history would back me up.
That’s why I would never trade AI as long as he wanted to be here, why I believe in rewarding aging players who gave your team their best years, and why I’ll never stop loving George Lynch because he played well in the playoffs on a broken foot. Meanwhile, you would trade all three of those guys for Paul Pierce if you thought our beloved Stabee would give your team 3 more wins a year.
You say, “there are lots of ways to win” and maybe that’s true when it comes to winning games, but when it comes to winning championships historically it hasn’t been true. Also, as you mentioned, Dallas doesn’t have a dominant low-post presence. I wonder how GS would match up with the Spurs. I hope it would be well, but I'm not confident it would be at all.
To your points …
--
1. if by “probably a misnomer” you mean “completely and totally factually incorrect” I’ll take it. However, their goal isn’t to push the ball as much as it is to exploit matchups. Their entire gameplan revolves around creating 1 on 1 (exactly the offense you claim to hate) … but they’re a bunch of midgets so its fascinating to watch.
2. As I said before, the Warriors are based on 1 on 1 play, maybe more so than any other team ever because they don’t care who goes 1 on 1. For example, the 2001 sixers team ran an offense that was based around AI breaking down the defense, but if that failed, the team would run a set … if the ball swung to eric snow he than wouldn’t try to break down the defense. No matter what Warrior has the ball, in this series their first option is to shoot.
3. You’re cherry picking facts and you know. You’re argument is that half of the playoff teams finished in the bottom half of the league in FT attempts, which doesn’t prove much about winning a championship, or anything. Also, the Kings stunk because of a huge lack of talent. Talent is still king in the NBA, and low post talent, which demands a defensively oriented style of play and running an offense through the post, is the most effective type of talent.
4. Honestly, all your facts about the playoffs come down to philosophy. I just don’t think that making the playoffs – thereby proving that you’re one of the best 16 out of 30 teams in the NBA - and taking 3 games from the Mavs in the first round is the pinnacle of basketball success. I define that as a championship. I’m enjoying the Warriors series because its an enormous amount of fun for a first round series, but lets see if they’re still around in a round or two. You’re completely right that a team can get hot for 4 or 5 games, but last I checked it takes 16 for a chip.
5. I was talking about their playoff #s, which would make sense, unless you’re arguing that their high assist numbers were the primary reason that were 42-40 and the mavs low totals directly led to their 67 wins.
I didn’t misinterpret your argument about bad teams trying to become running teams, I ignored it because its stupid. The Celtics tried to slow it up and they got murdered, the Grizz tried to run everyone out of the building and they got murdered, the Hawks had no discernable strategy and they got murdered - if you stink you stink, I’m saying you should try to ideally build a team with the best shot not of getting hot for 5 games and winning a series, but of winning a championship.
You even admit to my point, you say your “ultimate reason for even bothering to write about this topic is not that I think it's a surefire way to win a championship,” which makes sense. Look, I love watching the Warriors, but I think its foolish to suggest that teams like those are built to give their teams the best shot at the championship. I think the Suns have a better shot because they have assembled an absurd amount of talent, but honestly I think the Spurs have the best shot because they still have Duncan.
re: Warriors
1. I will grant you that "drive and kick" is probably a misnomer for Warriors ball, although many of their 3s in this series are coming off of penetration. Still, my ultimate point about taking lots of quick shots and pushing the ball to try to get layups stands.
2. I ignored free throws on purpose -- always a detriment to an argument in favor of shooting 3s, especially in the NBA where you can throw your body around get fouls called every time (AI and Wade have made careers out of it) -- but you also ignored one of my points. The type of philosophy that I subscribe to (and that Nelly, D'Antoni, and Beilein apparently also believe in) is not solely based on 3s. Frankly, I'd prefer a layup every time to a 3, but the idea is to always get one of the two. This simply means less mid-range one-on-one, which is a staple for most crappy teams' offenses in the NBA.
3. Still, I love that you pointed out the free throw aspect and tried to build an argument around it. And if that argument were backed up by any stats, it would be a good one. Unfortunately, it isn't. Guess who finished dead last in FT attempts this year? The Suns. Guess who finished 1st? The Kings, who last I checked were atrocious. 9 out of 16 playoff teams finished in the bottom half of the league in FT attempts. And among the 7 who finished in the top half were such heavyweights as Utah (#2 in the NBA, 1st round exit coming tonight), Denver (#3, 1st round exit), Washington (#4, swept in the 1st round), Orlando (#7, swept in the 1st round), and the Lakers (#9, 1st round exit). Needless to say, every one of those teams lost in the playoffs to a team that attempts fewer FTs per game. And just to hammer home my point, Memphis (#5), the Knicks (#6) and Atlanta (#10) were all among the top 10 in the league in FT att per game. That's quite a foursome when you include Sacramento. Making shots in the NBA is far more important than taking and making FTs. It's as simple as that.
4 ... or maybe it isn't that simple. Take a look at this year's 3-point shooting stats. You'll find some interesting stats (which I don't even need to manipulate at all to prove my point). The top 8 teams in 3s Attempted all made the playoffs, and overall 11 of the top 15 are playoff teams. The top 9 teams in 3s Made all made the playoffs, and again, 11 of the top 15 were playoff teams. In the playoffs alone, the top 7 in 3s Made all won/will win their 1st round series. Yet, to prove my point even more, both of these are better indicators than 3-pt % (which the casual fan would think to be most important). 7 of the top 10 are playoff teams, as are 9 of the top 15. But Boston and Memphis (the league's 2 worst teams), were #6 and 7, respectively in %. On top of that, 3-Pointers Attempted or Made is even a better indicator of regular season success than overall shooting % (even I was surprised by that). What does all this mean? Shoot more threes, and you're more likely to win. It isn't even essential that you make all of them. Combine this with the fact that FT makes and attempts have no predictive validity as to a team's wins and I think I'm right.
5. Also, a few loose ends to tie up. I assume you were talking about the Warriors' playoff numbers, because they finished 4th in the NBA in assists per game during the regular season (23.8), while Dallas finished 24th (19.9). And you misinterpreted the other part of my argument -- or you stopped reading halfway through -- which is that I conceded that a run-and-gun system has not yet won a championship (maybe the Suns will help my argument out this year). I would merely like to see more crumby NBA franchises like the Celtics, Sixers, Hawks, Sonics, etc. who have no semblance of a big man, running these kinds of offenses. If they try to play the style of Dallas or San Antonio, they'll get murdered, but mixing it up, upping the tempo and creating more possessions could give them a chance to compete, albeit without having a realistic shot at a championship. And my ultimate reason for even bothering to write about this topic is not that I think it's a surefire way to win a championship, but rather that I'm glad to see Golden State and Phoenix proving wrong people like you and the Sports Guy who think that crazy college ball isn't real basketball. It can work, both in college and in the NBA, especially in a tournament or playoff series when you can do serious damage by getting hot for 4 or 5 games.
2. I ignored free throws on purpose -- always a detriment to an argument in favor of shooting 3s, especially in the NBA where you can throw your body around get fouls called every time (AI and Wade have made careers out of it) -- but you also ignored one of my points. The type of philosophy that I subscribe to (and that Nelly, D'Antoni, and Beilein apparently also believe in) is not solely based on 3s. Frankly, I'd prefer a layup every time to a 3, but the idea is to always get one of the two. This simply means less mid-range one-on-one, which is a staple for most crappy teams' offenses in the NBA.
3. Still, I love that you pointed out the free throw aspect and tried to build an argument around it. And if that argument were backed up by any stats, it would be a good one. Unfortunately, it isn't. Guess who finished dead last in FT attempts this year? The Suns. Guess who finished 1st? The Kings, who last I checked were atrocious. 9 out of 16 playoff teams finished in the bottom half of the league in FT attempts. And among the 7 who finished in the top half were such heavyweights as Utah (#2 in the NBA, 1st round exit coming tonight), Denver (#3, 1st round exit), Washington (#4, swept in the 1st round), Orlando (#7, swept in the 1st round), and the Lakers (#9, 1st round exit). Needless to say, every one of those teams lost in the playoffs to a team that attempts fewer FTs per game. And just to hammer home my point, Memphis (#5), the Knicks (#6) and Atlanta (#10) were all among the top 10 in the league in FT att per game. That's quite a foursome when you include Sacramento. Making shots in the NBA is far more important than taking and making FTs. It's as simple as that.
4 ... or maybe it isn't that simple. Take a look at this year's 3-point shooting stats. You'll find some interesting stats (which I don't even need to manipulate at all to prove my point). The top 8 teams in 3s Attempted all made the playoffs, and overall 11 of the top 15 are playoff teams. The top 9 teams in 3s Made all made the playoffs, and again, 11 of the top 15 were playoff teams. In the playoffs alone, the top 7 in 3s Made all won/will win their 1st round series. Yet, to prove my point even more, both of these are better indicators than 3-pt % (which the casual fan would think to be most important). 7 of the top 10 are playoff teams, as are 9 of the top 15. But Boston and Memphis (the league's 2 worst teams), were #6 and 7, respectively in %. On top of that, 3-Pointers Attempted or Made is even a better indicator of regular season success than overall shooting % (even I was surprised by that). What does all this mean? Shoot more threes, and you're more likely to win. It isn't even essential that you make all of them. Combine this with the fact that FT makes and attempts have no predictive validity as to a team's wins and I think I'm right.
5. Also, a few loose ends to tie up. I assume you were talking about the Warriors' playoff numbers, because they finished 4th in the NBA in assists per game during the regular season (23.8), while Dallas finished 24th (19.9). And you misinterpreted the other part of my argument -- or you stopped reading halfway through -- which is that I conceded that a run-and-gun system has not yet won a championship (maybe the Suns will help my argument out this year). I would merely like to see more crumby NBA franchises like the Celtics, Sixers, Hawks, Sonics, etc. who have no semblance of a big man, running these kinds of offenses. If they try to play the style of Dallas or San Antonio, they'll get murdered, but mixing it up, upping the tempo and creating more possessions could give them a chance to compete, albeit without having a realistic shot at a championship. And my ultimate reason for even bothering to write about this topic is not that I think it's a surefire way to win a championship, but rather that I'm glad to see Golden State and Phoenix proving wrong people like you and the Sports Guy who think that crazy college ball isn't real basketball. It can work, both in college and in the NBA, especially in a tournament or playoff series when you can do serious damage by getting hot for 4 or 5 games.
Warriors, cont.
Look, I love the Warriors as much as everyone, and I think this team is hilarious and wonderful all at the same time, they are the zeitgeist right now, but to say that their 3 wins are somehow indicative of a tipping point in basketball strategy doesn’t make sense to me.
First off, you’re argument that it makes statistically sense to shoot lots of threes is just flawed.
Sure, it is easier to shoot 33% from deep than %50 inside the arch, but that completely ignores free throws and in-game strategy.
If you drive there are three reasonable outcomes.
1. make (2 pts)
2. miss (0 pts)
3. get fouled
Practically speaking, jump shooting teams don’t get fouled. This means a couple things.
1. no points from the line
2. the other team is never in foul trouble.
Both of these things are problems, because as everyone who has played basketball should know, if you’re not hitting your shots the way to heat up is to get to the line and get in rhythm. I team whose strategy is to constantly hoist from the outside both lives and dies by the three.
Also – and this is more important - the Warriors aren’t even playing drive-and-kick ball at all.
They’re taking advantage of the individual matchups, and shooting the first shot they have. This makes them terribly fun to watch, but does not mean that they’re playing the same type of game as the Suns at all. What is similar about those two teams is that they have unconventional coaches, great lead gaurds, and score a lot. Despite averaging the second most points (104 to Phx’s 108) Golden State average the third least assists per game (16 even … Phx averages 27)
They’re not winning because they’re distributing the ball but rather because they’re best player (Baron Davis) has gotten hot while Dallas best player (Dirk) has been soft – game 5 aside. And because they’re all crazy and have fans to match.
You say you would be stupid to argue that slowing the pace up and grinding in through a big man doesn’t work, but you’re essentially making that argument. Since 1990 (I’m not checking past there), the Bulls first championship, the argument could be made that every championship team except the Pistons either had the most dominant post player in the game, or MJ (who for the last three may well have been the most dominate post player in the game).
You talk about penetration and quick three’s but use the wrong example. The Suns play that type of game, and play it beautifully. If you want to use an example about ball movement and quick shots use them. GS is winning on luck, heart, and because Nelson owns the Mavs, not because they play college ball.
I would love it if the Warriors won the championship, but to make the argument that they probably will (which is the argument you’re making, by saying that “uptempo wins games”) doesn’t make a lot of sense.
Just like 12 or 13 seeds never win championships, I think its crazy to try to build a team around a concept that, historically, has never proven to be the best … especially over one that always has.
SI.COM read 9 Stabs
and John Donovan is a biter.
Post by Beale, defending the Myers move: Posted by JamesBeale at 8:19 AM
Post by SI, defending the Myers move: Posted: Thursday May 3, 2007 11:54AM.
JamesBeale, moving on up in the world.
Post by Beale, defending the Myers move: Posted by JamesBeale at 8:19 AM
Post by SI, defending the Myers move: Posted: Thursday May 3, 2007 11:54AM.
JamesBeale, moving on up in the world.
Reaffirming My Faith in Basketball
I've been waiting for this for years. I don't think I've had this much fun watching an NBA team probably since the Barkley-KJ-Majerle-Ceballos Suns in the early 90s. And somehow, it's actually the Golden State Warriors that are doing it for me. NBA purists love to bash the college game because so many teams just spread the floor and jack up 3's with no conscience. They say that this doesn't constitute real basketball. It could never win in the NBA. But with the Warriors one game away from knocking out the 1 seed, people like me are finally geting proved right.
I love drive-and-kick basketball. The more 3s the better, especially when you're the underdog. From a strictly statistical standpoint, it makes sense. Either take a 3 or a layup. It worked for West Virginia the last few years in college (an Elite 8, a Sweet 16, and an NIT championship, all with vastly inferior talent), and is working just fine for the Suns these days. A team only has to shoot 33% on threes to make the equivalent of 50% on twos. For reference, 29 out of 30 NBA teams this year shot 33% on 3s. Only 7 out of 30 shot 50% on 2s. It CAN pay off to shoot threes. But for some reason, NBA people get off to the thought of a good big man, and teams that slow the pace down. And I would be stupid to argue that this hasn't worked (see the Spurs), so long as you're lucky enough to have Duncan or Shaq. For most teams that don't have Hall-of-Fame post players -- this includes Dallas -- I see no reason why playing an uptempo, helter-skelter kind of game isn't at least worth trying.
The Dallas-GS series has at least shown one thing. That a college style offense which encourages penetration and quick threes can be successful against a classic pro-style team that also happens to be one of the best defensive teams in the league. People may say that it's a fluke, that Golden State is just lighting it up, but that isn't the case at all. They're actually shooting worse from 3 in this series than they did in the regular season. The biggest difference is 1) they take a million threes, so they're also making a lot more than Dallas and 2) they're shooting 53% on 2-pointers vs. 47% for Dallas. For me, this is an affirmation that running and gunning can work in the NBA. It creates mismatches against bigger, slower teams and it gives less talented teams a fighting chance, which is all Golden State can ask for. There's more than one way to win, and playing college-style ball is certainly one of them.
Beale, you'll probly disagree with me and say that defense and a slow tempo wins championships. And to this point, you'd be right. For the most part, that's how the Pistons, Spurs, and Heat have won. Over the course of 4 playoff series, it pays off to be able to dump the ball down low and get stops. But the reality is, playing to one's talent is what wins. The Suns may be the favorite to win the whole thing now and all they do is shoot 3s and layups, because they have the personnel to do so. The Warriors are about to pull the biggest upset since the Nuggets in '94 doing the same thing. My plea is not for every team to start doing this, but only for teams (like the Sixers) who can't match the Spurs or Pistons' talent to consider it. Just like 12 or 13 seeds in the NCAA tournament have no chance unless they hoist (and make) a ton of 3s, an average NBA team can at least compete by playing the percentages and spreading the floor to get layups and 3s.
I love drive-and-kick basketball. The more 3s the better, especially when you're the underdog. From a strictly statistical standpoint, it makes sense. Either take a 3 or a layup. It worked for West Virginia the last few years in college (an Elite 8, a Sweet 16, and an NIT championship, all with vastly inferior talent), and is working just fine for the Suns these days. A team only has to shoot 33% on threes to make the equivalent of 50% on twos. For reference, 29 out of 30 NBA teams this year shot 33% on 3s. Only 7 out of 30 shot 50% on 2s. It CAN pay off to shoot threes. But for some reason, NBA people get off to the thought of a good big man, and teams that slow the pace down. And I would be stupid to argue that this hasn't worked (see the Spurs), so long as you're lucky enough to have Duncan or Shaq. For most teams that don't have Hall-of-Fame post players -- this includes Dallas -- I see no reason why playing an uptempo, helter-skelter kind of game isn't at least worth trying.
The Dallas-GS series has at least shown one thing. That a college style offense which encourages penetration and quick threes can be successful against a classic pro-style team that also happens to be one of the best defensive teams in the league. People may say that it's a fluke, that Golden State is just lighting it up, but that isn't the case at all. They're actually shooting worse from 3 in this series than they did in the regular season. The biggest difference is 1) they take a million threes, so they're also making a lot more than Dallas and 2) they're shooting 53% on 2-pointers vs. 47% for Dallas. For me, this is an affirmation that running and gunning can work in the NBA. It creates mismatches against bigger, slower teams and it gives less talented teams a fighting chance, which is all Golden State can ask for. There's more than one way to win, and playing college-style ball is certainly one of them.
Beale, you'll probly disagree with me and say that defense and a slow tempo wins championships. And to this point, you'd be right. For the most part, that's how the Pistons, Spurs, and Heat have won. Over the course of 4 playoff series, it pays off to be able to dump the ball down low and get stops. But the reality is, playing to one's talent is what wins. The Suns may be the favorite to win the whole thing now and all they do is shoot 3s and layups, because they have the personnel to do so. The Warriors are about to pull the biggest upset since the Nuggets in '94 doing the same thing. My plea is not for every team to start doing this, but only for teams (like the Sixers) who can't match the Spurs or Pistons' talent to consider it. Just like 12 or 13 seeds in the NCAA tournament have no chance unless they hoist (and make) a ton of 3s, an average NBA team can at least compete by playing the percentages and spreading the floor to get layups and 3s.
Uncle Cholly: genius
So both Jon Lieber has been tearing it up in his new role as a starter - era 1.45 in last three starts, as opposed to 11.57 in the pen - and Bretty Myers has gone from a 9.29 era as a starter to a 1.08 in relief. With the Phillies pulling the "lets see if Gordon is hurt" routine to allow Myers to get comfortable closing without any risk, I think we need to start to wonder if this move was actually a good one.
While I'm confident that Myers wouldn't have spent the entire season giving up over a run an inning, when it comes to Lieber in relief I'm not so sure. Big Jon is only effective starting, but is proving that he is effective there.
Further, our relievers are awful, and Myers, with with his high Ks and bulldog mentality (and look) can fit right in back there. Also, it looks clear now, with Gordon going to philly to be "checked out" after not pitching last night, that he was meant to the closer when this move was made. If you remember back, this was actually something Charlie never denied outright.
Even waiting two weeks makes some sense, because we were able to get Garcia back, and not force the pressure onto Hamels being our #1 starter too early.
Now, if he could just learn how to fill out a scorecard ...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)