Pitino on Hurt: "He does something that we’re not great at, which is cutting."

You aren't understanding. Of course McBrayer is better than Hurt. No one is suggesting otherwise. The point is that you don't necessarily start your 5 most talented players. Sometimes you can get more overall value by having a better player coming off the bench, and I think that is the case here. We don't need 5 scorers on the court at the same time. Having a guy like Hurt playing with the starters more is beneficial since he moves the ball well, which can put our talented scorers in better position to do what they do best. McBrayer coming off the bench also helps with our lack of scoring off the bench. Saying Hurt should start doesn't mean he needs 30 minutes of playing time, nor does it mean he should play more than McBrayer. Not sure why this is such a struggle for you.

I understand perfectly. In every facet of the game McBrayer is > than Hurt. You don't stick him on the bench as a "spark" for later.
Hurt can come in and give the starters a breather for 5 minutes here and there. That's his role.
 

I understand perfectly. In every facet of the game McBrayer is > than Hurt. You don't stick him on the bench as a "spark" for later.
Hurt can come in and give the starters a breather for 5 minutes here and there. That's his role.

Yeah, you continue to prove that you don't get it by bringing up that McBrayer is better than Hurt. You're arguing a point that literally no one is making, and it's completely irrelevant anyway. Certain lineup combinations are more effective than others for reasons other than just talent. Players who come off the bench can also play 30+ minutes, so we aren't saying Hurt and McBrayer should swap minutes. McBrayer should still play more, just at different times. Feel free to continue pretending that you understand though.
 

Red herring
Hurt < McBrayer - given both are healthy.

You don't understand basketball very well.

The best five players don't automatically start. There are countless examples of superior players shifting into a 6th man role in the interest of strengthening the bench, roster balance, etc.
 


Yeah, you continue to prove that you don't get it by bringing up that McBrayer is better than Hurt. You're arguing a point that literally no one is making, and it's completely irrelevant anyway. Certain lineup combinations are more effective than others for reasons other than just talent. Players who come off the bench can also play 30+ minutes, so we aren't saying Hurt and McBrayer should swap minutes. McBrayer should still play more, just at different times. Feel free to continue pretending that you understand though.
There is zero good reason to start Hurt unless you want a 4 person offensive set where the person guarding Hurt doesn't have to worry about him scoring.
Hurt has played average against two bottom dwelling teams. People are getting way too excited about that. Also, people are reading into Pitino's comments what Pitino never said. All Pitino said is that Hurt moves better than others away from the ball. That doesn't mean that Hurt gets more minutes in B1G play. Not once has Hurt shown that he can play anything but spot minutes against B1G competition. It makes me shake my head that people want to wish him into a starting role and make a bad argument that McBrayer is better coming off the bench.
 



You don't understand basketball very well.

The best five players don't automatically start. There are countless examples of superior players shifting into a 6th man role in the interest of strengthening the bench, roster balance, etc.
I understand it fine. I understand that a kid who plays average against bottom dwellers is not ready to start against B1G competition. The argument that you and others are making is just foolishness.
 

I understand it fine. I understand that a kid who plays average against bottom dwellers is not ready to start against B1G competition. The argument that you and others are making is just foolishness.

There have been many times when I’ve played with a bunch of older guys like me and waxed a group of younger more athletic guys. We pick, roll, back cut, move the ball. All the things Pitino is giving credit to Hurt for - intangibles. Facilitating working as one. look at the teams results the last two games vs the two prior to that. Hurt is a kid that plays the right way at a high level. He’s only going to get better.
 

There have been many times when I’ve played with a bunch of older guys like me and waxed a group of younger more athletic guys. We pick, roll, back cut, move the ball. All the things Pitino is giving credit to Hurt for - intangibles. Facilitating working as one. look at the teams results the last two games vs the two prior to that. Hurt is a kid that plays the right way at a high level. He’s only going to get better.
No arguments, but that doesn't equate to starting role. Some of the scrubs likely run the offense better than the starters, but they don't get playing time because they aren't as good.
Pitino can point to the scrubs as an example to starters, but he isn't going to put inferior talent onto the court.
Hurt will get some spot minutes to give starters a breather, but he's not starter material, in my opinion.
 



No arguments, but that doesn't equate to starting role. Some of the scrubs likely run the offense better than the starters, but they don't get playing time because they aren't as good.
Pitino can point to the scrubs as an example to starters, but he isn't going to put inferior talent onto the court.
Hurt will get some spot minutes to give starters a breather, but he's not starter material, in my opinion.

What if we didn't give him starters minutes, but simply put him in at times when the other starters are on the floor because the ball moves better when he's in, which allows the good scorers around him to be more efficient? You seem stuck on this weird idea that your top 5 players HAVE to start and that someone coming off the bench can't get more minutes than one of the starters. Team chemistry and how the guys on the floor play together doesn't seem to cross your mind at all. Can't wrap my head around it.
 

What if we didn't give him starters minutes, but simply put him in at times when the other starters are on the floor because the ball moves better when he's in, which allows the good scorers around him to be more efficient? You seem stuck on this weird idea that your top 5 players HAVE to start and that someone coming off the bench can't get more minutes than one of the starters. Can't wrap my head around it.
That's a coaches decision. We have two games against bad opponents as our window of observation. Nowhere do we ever hear Pitino saying Hurt is going to get a starting role or more minutes in B1G play. That is just you and others projecting a fantasy upon reality.
 

That's a coaches decision.
No sh!t.

Nowhere do we ever hear Pitino saying Hurt is going to get a starting role or more minutes in B1G play.
You're obsessed with arguing points that no one is making. I'm not saying that he is going to start or that Pitino even said anything about that. I'm saying that I would like to see it happen. If it doesn't work out, then we can go back to McBrayer starting. Not like you have to make a season long decision right now. Coaches tinker with lineups early in the season all the time. I think it would be worth trying once McBrayer is back.
 

I’m with MennoSota. There is no reason Dupree doesn’t start and play major minutes with the starters. McBrayer is not a high volume scorer who is taking shots away from others. He provides a second ball handler and a 3pt shooter to spot up and make teams honest.

Hurt provides neither of those things. He does not make the starting 5 better than McBrayer. He is an energy guy off the bench that should get 10 minutes max on a good team. You play him spot minutes to spell the 3 and 4.
 



No sh!t.


You're obsessed with arguing points that no one is making. I'm not saying that he is going to start or that Pitino even said anything about that. I'm saying that I would like to see it happen. If it doesn't work out, then we can go back to McBrayer starting. Not like you have to make a season long decision right now. Coaches tinker with lineups early in the season all the time. I think it would be worth trying once McBrayer is back.
Why would you like to see it happen? White boy syndrome? The argument you are making is weak and poorly considered, in my opinion.
 

Why would you like to see it happen? White boy syndrome? The argument you are making is weak and poorly considered, in my opinion.

What the hell is "white boy syndrome"? And I would like to see it for the exact reasons I've already laid out. Do you really struggle this much with reading comprehension? Try reading my posts instead of responding to things that no one has said.
 

I’m with MennoSota. There is no reason Dupree doesn’t start and play major minutes with the starters. McBrayer is not a high volume scorer who is taking shots away from others. He provides a second ball handler and a 3pt shooter to spot up and make teams honest.

Hurt provides neither of those things. He does not make the starting 5 better than McBrayer. He is an energy guy off the bench that should get 10 minutes max on a good team. You play him spot minutes to spell the 3 and 4.

McBrayer's minutes should not get cut. He is the better player. Tinkering with WHEN he and Hurt get their minutes might be worth a try though. I like the way the ball moves when he is in the game and think our other starters get better shots when he is in, hence the reason I like the idea trying him as a starter when McBrayer is back. It would also provide more scoring from the bench. If you disagree that's fine. It's not meant as a slight to McBrayer. I think he's a very good player.
 

Why would you like to see it happen? White boy syndrome? The argument you are making is weak and poorly considered, in my opinion.

You have taken an interesting discussion and injected race into it. We probably shouldn't be surprised.

The Revenge Of The Sixth Man: Why They're More Valuable Than Ever In Today's NBA

The idea of bringing in a bench player to change the game is hardly new. The original concept dates all the way back to the 1960s, when legendary Boston Celtics coach Red Auerbach used to bring one of his best players off the bench to allow them to play with reckless abandon. Frank Ramsey was the NBA's first sixth man, and eventually John Havlicek grew into the role. Those players allowed the Celtics to continue playing at a breathneck pace when all other teams got tired.

The sixth man has always been valued since then, but never like this. Consider: when Barbosa won his Sixth Man of the Year award in 2006-07 while with the Phoenix Suns, there were 12 players who started less than 20 games (out of a minimum of 50) and averaged at least 10 points a game. Last year, that number ballooned to 22. This year, it's at 20. That's just with scorers too. A player like Turner, who touches a game in so many different ways, isn't on this year's list.

Read more at: https://www.sbnation.com/nba/2012/2/...eandro-barbosa

The Invaluable Sixth Man

The most important quality a sixth man needs is that this player should know your teams systems as well as any starting player within the line. Often players junior, senior or elite if they are not in the starting line-up do not pay attention to the importance of knowing what is going on at all times on the floor. For elite teams this can be especially evident as coaches utilise players from the bench in certain situations so those players often become overly familiar with that role, but then reduce their ability to fill any other role they may be called upon to play.

The sixth man needs to be a positive force on the floor. When the sixth man first rotates into the game they need to energise the other floor players from the starting line-up. The sixth player can be used a catalyst for changing the game if a poor result on the floor is occurring. When substituting into the game in these types of situations or in general the sixth man should bring positive energy to give to the other players. An over emphasis on positive talk and actions can help inspire team mates to change the game. Regardless of the situation, the sixth man should initially when walking onto the floor act like the “biggest fan” of the other players on the floor to instil a positive atmosphere.

The sixth player needs to be an impact player. When the sixth man steps onto the court this player should be looking to change the game. Each player within a team brings something different, as coaches you are probably more aware of this more than most people. But for the sixth man the impact needs to be immediate and in line or above the intensity of the game. This player should be looking to fill the directive provided by the coach to the letter so the game play can continue to evolve and play out as desired. A sixth man who substitutes into a game only to have the player they are guarding score the next three baskets becomes a problem for the team and a weakness that upsets the flow of the team.

Read more at: https://functionalbasketballcoaching.com/the-invaluable-sixth-man/
 

What the hell is "white boy syndrome"? And I would like to see it for the exact reasons I've already laid out. Do you really struggle this much with reading comprehension? Try reading my posts instead of responding to things that no one has said.
I comprehend that your opinion is flawed, wrong and won't happen if McBrayer is healthy.
 

You have taken an interesting discussion and injected race into it. We probably shouldn't be surprised.

The Revenge Of The Sixth Man: Why They're More Valuable Than Ever In Today's NBA

The idea of bringing in a bench player to change the game is hardly new. The original concept dates all the way back to the 1960s, when legendary Boston Celtics coach Red Auerbach used to bring one of his best players off the bench to allow them to play with reckless abandon. Frank Ramsey was the NBA's first sixth man, and eventually John Havlicek grew into the role. Those players allowed the Celtics to continue playing at a breathneck pace when all other teams got tired.

The sixth man has always been valued since then, but never like this. Consider: when Barbosa won his Sixth Man of the Year award in 2006-07 while with the Phoenix Suns, there were 12 players who started less than 20 games (out of a minimum of 50) and averaged at least 10 points a game. Last year, that number ballooned to 22. This year, it's at 20. That's just with scorers too. A player like Turner, who touches a game in so many different ways, isn't on this year's list.

Read more at: https://www.sbnation.com/nba/2012/2/...eandro-barbosa

The Invaluable Sixth Man

The most important quality a sixth man needs is that this player should know your teams systems as well as any starting player within the line. Often players junior, senior or elite if they are not in the starting line-up do not pay attention to the importance of knowing what is going on at all times on the floor. For elite teams this can be especially evident as coaches utilise players from the bench in certain situations so those players often become overly familiar with that role, but then reduce their ability to fill any other role they may be called upon to play.

The sixth man needs to be a positive force on the floor. When the sixth man first rotates into the game they need to energise the other floor players from the starting line-up. The sixth player can be used a catalyst for changing the game if a poor result on the floor is occurring. When substituting into the game in these types of situations or in general the sixth man should bring positive energy to give to the other players. An over emphasis on positive talk and actions can help inspire team mates to change the game. Regardless of the situation, the sixth man should initially when walking onto the floor act like the “biggest fan” of the other players on the floor to instil a positive atmosphere.

The sixth player needs to be an impact player. When the sixth man steps onto the court this player should be looking to change the game. Each player within a team brings something different, as coaches you are probably more aware of this more than most people. But for the sixth man the impact needs to be immediate and in line or above the intensity of the game. This player should be looking to fill the directive provided by the coach to the letter so the game play can continue to evolve and play out as desired. A sixth man who substitutes into a game only to have the player they are guarding score the next three baskets becomes a problem for the team and a weakness that upsets the flow of the team.

Read more at: https://functionalbasketballcoaching.com/the-invaluable-sixth-man/
Let Hurt be the Sixth man then.
 

A lot of kids never learn to cut because of the types of offenses they are running. You start out learning really basic plays that don't allow much freedom. Then you get older and it becomes a lot of 1 on 1, fast breaking, pick and roll, etc. A good cutter is hard to defend, Hurt has proven he is a good cutter. He may need some work finishing but he can certainly cut.

He has missed some easy ones from IW the past couple games but I like his new found confidence. I wouldn't mind seeing him start a few more games and see if Dupree can lead the 2nd unit (which has been dreadful)

You don't need to play Hurt more than Dupree. Hell, you could play Dupree 35 minutes in a game if you want. But you don't have to start him.

It was good to see him go up strong on some of those cuts even though I remember him getting rejected a couple times. If only we could get Coffey to cut like that since he would have a better chance of finishing. He and Washington are eventually going to be special playing together eventually once they get that chemistry, I think. Their styles and strengths should really combine well. Can't wait for those consistent fast breaks, alley-oops, pick and rolls, cuts, etc. Anyway, back to Hurt... Washington does appear to be by far the best at finding him on cuts. I hope that continues and Hurt develops a quick pull-up or floater. It really looks like he's going to have a hard time ever finishing that against bigger and more athletic guys. He seems to have decent vision so maybe instead of always trying to score on that cut he could find an open 3 or else Coffey or Murphy cutting down the lane on the catch.

On an unrelated note, it seems like if Washington is going to be the one to try to make a play, we really need to not stand around watching. I can certainly understand why that happens, but we could actually really benefit from his ball-handling, quickness, and passing ability if we set more screens for him, let him drove, and then actually cut to open spots for a dish or jumper.

This team would be so much better with a big emphasis on cutting. I also liked it last year when we did more handoffs. Those always felt like they weren't going anywhere but we would actually just work the clock, get a matchup we liked, and then drive and make something happen. The nice part about this year is that now we have Washington who can turn that corner and Murphy has become a very good slasher.

When we rebound the ball, I feel like we should either push it quickly up the court if a good opportunity presents itself (Murphy should be outletting to Coffey, Mason, Washington, or McBrayer) or else really take our time to work the clock. We have a lot of guys who can create at the end of the clock and at least have a good shot at being fouled if they miss. Coffey was amazing at it for a freshman during the second half of games. I just can't stand when Mason and Washington rush terrible shots and occasionally a few other players. Murphy did it last year but now just about every shot he takes other than a 3 is legit.
 

Yes it is. This team is remarkably better off with a healthy Dupree starting.

I tend to agree with you in general on Gopherhole, but I feel like you're debating different things with several posters right now (myself included)--meaning you think we're suggesting something that we aren't and possibly vice versa. I'm not talking about taking any minutes away from a healthy McBrayer. I just think we have enough scoring and playmaking in the starting lineup and not the bench that it would benefit us greatly if he were a more featured playmaker in the second unit but still played at the end of games over Hurt. What about that do you disagree with? I think a HEALTHY McBrayer is underutilized in the starting lineup just because our other starters are that good. With all that said, I think the matchup makes a difference. There will be times where Hurt is exploited too much on defense that we have to get McBrayer in there and there will also be times where we simply need McBrayer over Hurt for his spacing. We really need Hurt to start hitting at least around 36%.
 

You aren't understanding. Of course McBrayer is better than Hurt. No one is suggesting otherwise. The point is that you don't necessarily start your 5 most talented players. Sometimes you can get more overall value by having a better player coming off the bench, and I think that is the case here. We don't need 5 scorers on the court at the same time. Having a guy like Hurt playing with the starters more is beneficial since he moves the ball well, which can put our talented scorers in better position to do what they do best. McBrayer coming off the bench also helps with our lack of scoring off the bench. Saying Hurt should start doesn't mean he needs 30 minutes of playing time, nor does it mean he should play more than McBrayer. Not sure why this is such a struggle for you.

Damnit, I wish I read this before posting. Those are the exact same points I was trying to get across.
 

There is zero good reason to start Hurt unless you want a 4 person offensive set where the person guarding Hurt doesn't have to worry about him scoring.
Hurt has played average against two bottom dwelling teams. People are getting way too excited about that. Also, people are reading into Pitino's comments what Pitino never said. All Pitino said is that Hurt moves better than others away from the ball. That doesn't mean that Hurt gets more minutes in B1G play. Not once has Hurt shown that he can play anything but spot minutes against B1G competition. It makes me shake my head that people want to wish him into a starting role and make a bad argument that McBrayer is better coming off the bench.

Starting role but same amount of minutes! I really hope as I finish reading this thread I will find that the lightbulb went off. Who the hell has said Hurt should get more minutes? Starting doesn't automatically mean more minutes! People are encouraged by signs of life from Hurt and certainly his brother plays a role in the excitement in the back of people's heads. There weren't a lot of signs of potential prior to recent games. You're acting like people are screaming for him to get way more minutes because he put up some decent performances against weak teams. I don't see anyone greatly exaggerating his contributions. I think they're more excited about having a weapon on our weak bench who basically plays starter minutes and finishes games. Think Jamal Crawford (but not old man version).
 

That's a coaches decision. We have two games against bad opponents as our window of observation. Nowhere do we ever hear Pitino saying Hurt is going to get a starting role or more minutes in B1G play. That is just you and others projecting a fantasy upon reality.

Of course he wouldn't say that to the media. Why would he? Dude, this is ridiculous. McBrayer can play the 30 minutes that he should while still having Hurt start. Nobody is projecting a fantasy. We've just already seen that McBrayer actually likes playing off the bench and is good at it and there are reasons for him to come in early as a spark as long as Hurt isn't killing us. Have him sub out after 5-6 minutes so that a fresh McBrayer can bring energy and playmaking on both ends of the floor. It seems like you think people are underestimating McBrayer and overestimating Hurt when really what we're all saying is we want to get the most out of his talent by featuring him. Alright, I'll stop posting in this thread.
 

I tend to agree with you in general on Gopherhole, but I feel like you're debating different things with several posters right now (myself included)--meaning you think we're suggesting something that we aren't and possibly vice versa. I'm not talking about taking any minutes away from a healthy McBrayer. I just think we have enough scoring and playmaking in the starting lineup and not the bench that it would benefit us greatly if he were a more featured playmaker in the second unit but still played at the end of games over Hurt. What about that do you disagree with? I think a HEALTHY McBrayer is underutilized in the starting lineup just because our other starters are that good. With all that said, I think the matchup makes a difference. There will be times where Hurt is exploited too much on defense that we have to get McBrayer in there and there will also be times where we simply need McBrayer over Hurt for his spacing. We really need Hurt to start hitting at least around 36%.
I think you need all your best players on the court to start the game. A sixth man is usually gifted in a specific area to create a spark, but it's his weaknesses that keep him on the bench.
There are three important points in a game. The first five minutes, to set the tone. The first five minutes of the second half to once again, set the tone. The last five minutes to drive home the victory. McBrayer, in my opinion, is an all around top five player on this team and should be in the game at these critical points.
 

Damnit, I wish I read this before posting. Those are the exact same points I was trying to get across.

Well it's nice to see people agree with what I said. Explaining these simple, reasonable points to MennoSota seems about as effective as trying to teach a dog calculus.
 

Kevin McHale made a living not starting, but playing 30+ minutes per game for the Celtics.

If Hurt can give some defensive energy and make it easier for the big scorers to do just that at the beginning of the game, while McBrayer can give us some scoring off the bench and still play his 25-30 mpg, than that can be a solution to the weak bench, scoring-wise.
 

Kevin McHale made a living not starting, but playing 30+ minutes per game for the Celtics.

If Hurt can give some defensive energy and make it easier for the big scorers to do just that at the beginning of the game, while McBrayer can give us some scoring off the bench and still play his 25-30 mpg, than that can be a solution to the weak bench, scoring-wise.

Careful. Logical and reasonable points like that could lead to you being accused of being racist.
 




Top Bottom