Ike; Bad on defense?

Discuss anything related to Golden State Warriors basketball here

Moderators: Mr. Crackerz, JREED, Guybrush, hobbes

User avatar
All Star
Posts: 1221
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2006 9:54 pm
Poster Credit: 0
PostPosted: Tue Jan 16, 2007 4:32 pm
coltraning wrote:
aletha33 wrote:
uptempo wrote:OK, I hear what you are saying; however, I do not understand why you would want Pietrus and Barnes playing instead of Ike at the 4. Please explain your reasoning. Also, the only way that Ike is going to improve is if he gets playing time in real game situations. To pass the ball out of the double team in practice is much different than in a game situation.

Lastly, this Warrior team is a horrible defensive and rebounding team. Ike addresses both interior defense as well as rebounding.


this stems from various reasons....

1) production. pietrus and barnes simply produce more than ike. whether it's a product of being a better fit in nellie's system or not, the fact remains, pietrus and barnes - take your pick - produce more.


this confuses me. Please define produce. I give you that both barnes and pietrus are better defensive players, but offensively Ike is the most productive Warrior per minute by a long shot. he is actually one of the more productive offensive players in the league on a per minute basis. Look it up if you don't believe me.


one problem i see here on the board when members talk about ike is this production "per minute" crap. so with the 8 or 10 minutes ike does average (or whatever the number is), you take his production numbers and average them out to 48 minutes...and those numbers are what he'd "produce"... please.

doesn't work that way...i highly doubt that ike will put up those numbers in 48 minutes...that's purely speculation...so many factors would bring those numbers down...

fact is, as i said before, pietrus and barnes produce more... what do i mean by produce? simple - more actual points, more actual rebounds, more actual assists, more actual blocked shots, more actual minutes.
User avatar
All Star
Posts: 1221
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2006 9:54 pm
Poster Credit: 0
PostPosted: Tue Jan 16, 2007 4:36 pm
uptempo wrote:
aletha33 wrote:
uptempo wrote:OK, I hear what you are saying; however, I do not understand why you would want Pietrus and Barnes playing instead of Ike at the 4. Please explain your reasoning. Also, the only way that Ike is going to improve is if he gets playing time in real game situations. To pass the ball out of the double team in practice is much different than in a game situation.

Lastly, this Warrior team is a horrible defensive and rebounding team. Ike addresses both interior defense as well as rebounding.


this stems from various reasons....

1) production. pietrus and barnes simply produce more than ike. whether it's a product of being a better fit in nellie's system or not, the fact remains, pietrus and barnes - take your pick - produce more.

2) for all the rebounds and ike will supposedly produce, he gives it back in his attempt to play defense. whether it's missing an assignment, forgetting a rotation, getting sealed in the paint (like elton did a few times yesterday), he's a liability...more so than barnes.

3) if you're going to put out a team that runs, commit to it 100%. As frustrating as it can get watching 'Small Ball', like many on the board have been saying, ike just doesn't fit in nellie's system now. ike slows the game down - it takes him a good 5 seconds before he decides to start his post moves...

i agree that the only way for ike to improve is to get playing time - but im pretty sure if ike plays a majority of the minutes, we'll end up losing games...so it's a tough situation.


OK. I now see what you are saying. If this is the case, then Mullin should trade Ike for a more athletic, slasher type of player. Ike, unfortunately, is one of the only players on this team that other NBA teams would want. Once again, Mullin has put together pieces that do not fit well together. With Nelson's small ball, Artest would have been a perfect fit.

...sigh...


ya, i'd have to agree with you about the artest statement... dont agree with how ike is the only player nba teams want...

nellie turned to small ball out of necessity, though that's his style anyway. once (or if) ike should develop, we might change the way we play...

but artest would have been the perfect fit...wish ike were included in a trade for artest.

All Star
Posts: 2809
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2005 4:46 pm
Poster Credit: 7
PostPosted: Tue Jan 16, 2007 4:56 pm
aletha33 wrote:
uptempo wrote:
aletha33 wrote:
uptempo wrote:OK, I hear what you are saying; however, I do not understand why you would want Pietrus and Barnes playing instead of Ike at the 4. Please explain your reasoning. Also, the only way that Ike is going to improve is if he gets playing time in real game situations. To pass the ball out of the double team in practice is much different than in a game situation.

Lastly, this Warrior team is a horrible defensive and rebounding team. Ike addresses both interior defense as well as rebounding.


this stems from various reasons....

1) production. pietrus and barnes simply produce more than ike. whether it's a product of being a better fit in nellie's system or not, the fact remains, pietrus and barnes - take your pick - produce more.

2) for all the rebounds and ike will supposedly produce, he gives it back in his attempt to play defense. whether it's missing an assignment, forgetting a rotation, getting sealed in the paint (like elton did a few times yesterday), he's a liability...more so than barnes.

3) if you're going to put out a team that runs, commit to it 100%. As frustrating as it can get watching 'Small Ball', like many on the board have been saying, ike just doesn't fit in nellie's system now. ike slows the game down - it takes him a good 5 seconds before he decides to start his post moves...

i agree that the only way for ike to improve is to get playing time - but im pretty sure if ike plays a majority of the minutes, we'll end up losing games...so it's a tough situation.


OK. I now see what you are saying. If this is the case, then Mullin should trade Ike for a more athletic, slasher type of player. Ike, unfortunately, is one of the only players on this team that other NBA teams would want. Once again, Mullin has put together pieces that do not fit well together. With Nelson's small ball, Artest would have been a perfect fit.

...sigh...


ya, i'd have to agree with you about the artest statement... dont agree with how ike is the only player nba teams want...

nellie turned to small ball out of necessity, though that's his style anyway. once (or if) ike should develop, we might change the way we play...

but artest would have been the perfect fit...wish ike were included in a trade for artest.


A big problem with the way that Mullin is running the franchise is how he either invests in or acquires pieces to the team that do not fit with the style of the coach.

By panicking after not making his promised blockbuster off season trade and bringing in Nelson, Mullin should have revamped the roster to fit Nelson's coaching style (running, fast breaking, small ball).

The only way that Ike develops is by playing.
User avatar
All Star
Posts: 1221
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2006 9:54 pm
Poster Credit: 0
PostPosted: Tue Jan 16, 2007 5:01 pm
uptempo wrote:The only way that Ike develops is by playing.


and if he continues playing as he is now, it won't be here...or at least it won't be this season.

All Star
Posts: 2809
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2005 4:46 pm
Poster Credit: 7
PostPosted: Tue Jan 16, 2007 5:09 pm
aletha33 wrote:
uptempo wrote:The only way that Ike develops is by playing.


and if he continues playing as he is now, it won't be here...or at least it won't be this season.


We all understand that Ike is poor on the block when dealing with the double team and that his help defense is below the bar; however, he does provide the team with interior play and toughness. With the front court that you are advocating, this Warrior team will be getting sand kicked in its face every time that it steps onto the court.

I do agree with you on how Ike does not fit into Nelson's coaching style.
User avatar
All Star
Posts: 2558
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2006 8:53 am
Location: where you aren't
Poster Credit: 0
PostPosted: Tue Jan 16, 2007 6:01 pm
aletha33 wrote:
coltraning wrote:
aletha33 wrote:
uptempo wrote:OK, I hear what you are saying; however, I do not understand why you would want Pietrus and Barnes playing instead of Ike at the 4. Please explain your reasoning. Also, the only way that Ike is going to improve is if he gets playing time in real game situations. To pass the ball out of the double team in practice is much different than in a game situation.

Lastly, this Warrior team is a horrible defensive and rebounding team. Ike addresses both interior defense as well as rebounding.


this stems from various reasons....

1) production. pietrus and barnes simply produce more than ike. whether it's a product of being a better fit in nellie's system or not, the fact remains, pietrus and barnes - take your pick - produce more.


this confuses me. Please define produce. I give you that both barnes and pietrus are better defensive players, but offensively Ike is the most productive Warrior per minute by a long shot. he is actually one of the more productive offensive players in the league on a per minute basis. Look it up if you don't believe me.


one problem i see here on the board when members talk about ike is this production "per minute" crap. so with the 8 or 10 minutes ike does average (or whatever the number is), you take his production numbers and average them out to 48 minutes...and those numbers are what he'd "produce"... please.

doesn't work that way...i highly doubt that ike will put up those numbers in 48 minutes...that's purely speculation...so many factors would bring those numbers down...


Ike wouldn't put those numbers up in 48 minutes per game, but he would very likely put AT LEAST those numbers up in the amount of time Pietrus and Barnes get. His numbers are actually hurt by scattered minutes because he basically has to pruduce from the start if he wants to stay in the game whereas barnes and MP get leeway. If Ike knew that no matter what he did he'd stay in 20+ minutes, like MP, he'd easily average double figures.
ImageImage
User avatar
All Star
Posts: 3042
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 5:42 pm
Poster Credit: 0
PostPosted: Tue Jan 16, 2007 7:02 pm
aletha33 wrote:this confuses me. Please define produce. I give you that both barnes and pietrus are better defensive players, but offensively Ike is the most productive Warrior per minute by a long shot. he is actually one of the more productive offensive players in the league on a per minute basis. Look it up if you don't believe me.


one problem i see here on the board when members talk about ike is this production "per minute" crap. so with the 8 or 10 minutes ike does average (or whatever the number is), you take his production numbers and average them out to 48 minutes...and those numbers are what he'd "produce"... please.

doesn't work that way...i highly doubt that ike will put up those numbers in 48 minutes...that's purely speculation...so many factors would bring those numbers down...

fact is, as i said before, pietrus and barnes produce more... what do i mean by produce? simple - more actual points, more actual rebounds, more actual assists, more actual blocked shots, more actual minutes.[/quote]
dismissing something as crap doesn't make it so. By your reasoning, Kevin Willis was a better player than was Bill Walton since he has way more ACTUAL rebounds and blocked shots than does Walton. Folks who analyze this for a living consistently rank production per minute and production per shot as highly relevant, whether or not you want to call it crap. By both measures, as well as fouls drawn and shooting percentage, Ike ranks extremely high. Pest also makes a great point about his being on an absurdly short leash. I have seen Dung stink out the joint repeatedly and get major minutes, whereas Ike gets sporadic and fitful minutes, yanked for miscues or sometimes just yanked. Again, YOU used the word productive. Since you don't like the measures the stats people use, please explain how YOU define it and on what basis, other than total points, etc?
To Live is A Value Judgment - Albert Camus
3 reasons for living: Jazz, Hoops and women

President Barack Hussein Obama - America chose Hope over Fear
ImageImage
User avatar
All Star
Posts: 1221
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2006 9:54 pm
Poster Credit: 0
PostPosted: Tue Jan 16, 2007 8:17 pm
coltraning wrote:dismissing something as crap doesn't make it so. By your reasoning, Kevin Willis was a better player than was Bill Walton since he has way more ACTUAL rebounds and blocked shots than does Walton. Folks who analyze this for a living consistently rank production per minute and production per shot as highly relevant, whether or not you want to call it crap. By both measures, as well as fouls drawn and shooting percentage, Ike ranks extremely high. Pest also makes a great point about his being on an absurdly short leash. I have seen Dung stink out the joint repeatedly and get major minutes, whereas Ike gets sporadic and fitful minutes, yanked for miscues or sometimes just yanked. Again, YOU used the word productive. Since you don't like the measures the stats people use, please explain how YOU define it and on what basis, other than total points, etc?


you're talking oranges when im talking apples...sounds like you're talking career stats...did I say anything about career totals? i'm talking about on a per game basis... if one number exceeds another, that's more productive...you guys are forecasting. like i said, doesn't work.

i just explained how i define produtive..it's actually quite simple:

when the total points for pietrus in a particular game exceeds the total points for ike in a single game, that means to me that pietrus has been more productive.

when the total rebounds per game by barnes exceeds that of ike in that same game, barnes is more productive...

who cares about short leashes or not getting chances or dun getting more of a chance and all that other BS...ike ain't playing, therefore ike aint producing, therefore pietrus and barnes are more productive with more points, rebounds, assists, etc...

i have the concrete #'s to back it up..you guys don't.

you guys are infatuated with PROJECTED STATS...which in my book doesn't me sh*t.
User avatar
All Star
Posts: 1221
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2006 9:54 pm
Poster Credit: 0
PostPosted: Tue Jan 16, 2007 8:22 pm
tHe_pEsTiLeNcE wrote:Ike wouldn't put those numbers up in 48 minutes per game, but he would very likely put AT LEAST those numbers up in the amount of time Pietrus and Barnes get. His numbers are actually hurt by scattered minutes because he basically has to pruduce from the start if he wants to stay in the game whereas barnes and MP get leeway. If Ike knew that no matter what he did he'd stay in 20+ minutes, like MP, he'd easily average double figures.


again, i agree it's totally possible...but you're guessing. you dont know for sure.

i do know for sure that pietrus and barnes produce more. there is no arguing the numbers here.

one can argue however that ike can put up the same #'s given similar minutes - though i doubt that too...
User avatar
All Star
Posts: 2558
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2006 8:53 am
Location: where you aren't
Poster Credit: 0
PostPosted: Tue Jan 16, 2007 8:28 pm
yes, but your definition of "producing more" means NOTHING as to why ike ain't playing. Ike not producing just shows THAT he ain't playing, it doesn't show WHY he isn't playing.
ImageImage
User avatar
Franchise Player
Posts: 9202
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 11:07 pm
Location: Land of the Lacob.
Poster Credit: 0
PostPosted: Tue Jan 16, 2007 9:08 pm
True, but don't you think he wouldn't be able to get the playing time Barnes and Pietrus get because of his foul trouble.
User avatar
All Star
Posts: 2558
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2006 8:53 am
Location: where you aren't
Poster Credit: 0
PostPosted: Tue Jan 16, 2007 9:16 pm
xBayAreaWarriorx wrote:True, but don't you think he wouldn't be able to get the playing time Barnes and Pietrus get because of his foul trouble.

There's a difference between MP minutes and getting two straight DNPs.
ImageImage
User avatar
All Star
Posts: 1221
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2006 9:54 pm
Poster Credit: 0
PostPosted: Tue Jan 16, 2007 9:17 pm
tHe_pEsTiLeNcE wrote:yes, but your definition of "producing more" means NOTHING as to why ike ain't playing. Ike not producing just shows THAT he ain't playing, it doesn't show WHY he isn't playing.


it has EVERYTHING to do with why ike's not playing...

it's quite simple...note:

you're ike...i'm pietrus.

i PRODUCE more than you...meaning, i score more, i grab boards, i dime others, i'm a more effective player...i contribute more to trying TO WIN THE GAME.

YOU DON'T PLAY UNLESS I NEED REST.

the end.

what's hard to understand about that?
User avatar
All Star
Posts: 3042
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 5:42 pm
Poster Credit: 0
PostPosted: Tue Jan 16, 2007 9:25 pm
aletha33 wrote:
i just explained how i define produtive..it's actually quite simple:

when the total points for pietrus in a particular game exceeds the total points for ike in a single game, that means to me that pietrus has been more productive.

when the total rebounds per game by barnes exceeds that of ike in that same game, barnes is more productive...

who cares about short leashes or not getting chances or dun getting more of a chance and all that other BS...ike ain't playing, therefore ike aint producing, therefore pietrus and barnes are more productive with more points, rebounds, assists, etc...

i have the concrete #'s to back it up..you guys don't.

you guys are infatuated with PROJECTED STATS...which in my book doesn't me sh*t.

sigh...speaking of books, this discussion is getting too orwellian for me. Whatever you want it to mean, the word productivity has a universally accepted meaning in business and in sports. Basic Econ 101: It's pretty simple. Productivity means time put in for goods produced. That's what the word means, even if it doesn't in your book. If Factory A produces 100 cars and takes 50 hours to do so, and factory B produces 80 cars and takes 20 hours to do so, factory B is more productive. A businessman looking at those #s and saying the factory that produced 100 cars is more productive won't stay in business too long. To analogize. If Ike Diogu scores 10 points in 15 minutes taking 6 shots and Matt Barnes scores 12 points in 30 minutes taking 20 shots, IKE IS MORE PRODUCTIVE AS A SCORER! That's is what productive means. Ike scores 1.48 points for every shot he takes, Barnes scores 1.23, Pietrus scores 1.37. I could write you an equation but f**k it - believe whatever you want to, bro. :crazy:
To Live is A Value Judgment - Albert Camus
3 reasons for living: Jazz, Hoops and women

President Barack Hussein Obama - America chose Hope over Fear
ImageImage
User avatar
Franchise Player
Posts: 9202
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 11:07 pm
Location: Land of the Lacob.
Poster Credit: 0
PostPosted: Tue Jan 16, 2007 9:31 pm
tHe_pEsTiLeNcE wrote:
xBayAreaWarriorx wrote:True, but don't you think he wouldn't be able to get the playing time Barnes and Pietrus get because of his foul trouble.

There's a difference between MP minutes and getting two straight DNPs.


No no no, what I was trying to say is would you think because of the fact Ike gets easily into foul trouble so early, it'd even be harder to play him even if Nellie did decide to play him.
PreviousNext

Return to Warriors Basketball

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 2 guests

cron