2023 Suns General Offseason/PostSeason News Thread

[pickle]

I get it but there’s very little you can do to practice monster rebounding in a one on zero scenario. I’m happy to see him stay in great shape and put in work. If he’s comfortable enough with his handle that he can free up some mental cycles to observe what’s happening around him and make plays for others that’s something I definitely welcome. And if his three point shooting is enough of a threat it would open up other aspects of his game. All in all I am positive on this brief video. Just wish his handle was more game-ready. The current form probably leads to swipe aways more than it does to successfully shaking his man and getting to the hoop.

[Split T]

He doesn’t need to break down defenses with the handle…just needs to be able to use it to attack open space

[Superbone]

He looks to be in great shape, which is awesome. His handles, in a video that’s supposedly highlighting his handles, still look Stanley-from-The-Office-esque.

Dribbling thru the legs a bunch of times in one spot 16ft from the basket and putting up a jumper isn't having "handles". It's just more of the same from him.

He does look leaner and bit bouncier, which should help him down low against the bigger bodies when he's boxing out and defending the post and trying to move people near the rim for those easy dunks he'll be getting off drives from Book, Beal and KD.

In fairness to Deandre, it said he is working on his handles. Doesn't mean he's there yet. He has a long way to go but it's good that he's working on them.

As far as the leanness, I'm not so sure it's going to help him down low against bigger bodies. Especially with his penchant for avoiding contact. I was a much better rebounder when I was overweight. Last time I went out more recently since I got in shape, I was getting pushed around like never before. Anyway, to me it looks like he's going to be even more finesse. He's starting to look more like a small forward. I'm actually a little worried that he's too lean.

[Superbone]

Is it me or does it look like he changed his shooting motion / release point a bit?

His release point on the 3s looks a bit higher, less of a line drive push shot from his forehead.

I too noticed that he had more arc on his three point shot which is what I've been asking for. I was very happy to see that.

[Superbone]

I get it but there’s very little you can do to practice monster rebounding in a one on zero scenario. I’m happy to see him stay in great shape and put in work. If he’s comfortable enough with his handle that he can free up some mental cycles to observe what’s happening around him and make plays for others that’s something I definitely welcome. And if his three point shooting is enough of a threat it would open up other aspects of his game. All in all I am positive on this brief video. Just wish his handle was more game-ready. The current form probably leads to swipe aways more than it does to successfully shaking his man and getting to the hoop.

To me, the most important thing for him to learn is when not how. To be aware of his surroundings and stop trying to put the ball down when there are guards nearby just waiting to strip the ball. Use his dribble when appropriate.

[Mori Chu]

I'm giving Ayton a hard time, but I'm glad he is actively practicing and working on his game and getting reps. Good on him.

[JeremyG]

And yes I considered game 4 (Keith’s shot is literally in the clip I posted), but those plays did not win the game. Yes, they would have lost without them (same with Ayton’s), but they did not cause them to win (like Ayton’s).

Did you really? And what kind of logic is that? If you lose the game, you cannot then win the game. Are you saying that the ONLY plays that can be considered are ones that, all by themselves, took the team from a certain losing position to a certain winning position, and therefore, say, a shot to take the lead in a tied game shouldn't count? Are you sure you're not just arbitrarily narrowing the dataset to the one, single point that you've decided is the right one?

Also, I don't see your comment on the fact that those plays by Erickson and Sobers prevented an almost certain elimination, where Ayton's shot prevented an early 1-1 tie in a series which didn't go to seven games and which the Suns might easily still have won. Doesn't the overall competitive context matter?

I'm not saying those are the only ones that can be considered, but you have to narrow them down in a logical manner somehow. (For example, if it was game 7 of the Finals and the game was tied and a Suns player hit a shot at the buzzer to win the championship, then that would obviously trump a WCF play.)

But you seem to be missing the point. What you're talking about (1976 WCF Game 4) could perhaps be called "the greatest sequence of plays" or "greatest win," but the whole point of focusing on a singular play as "the greatest play" is that that one play had to do it all, all by itself. So if the game had been tied and/or the Clippers had been able to get a shot off after Ayton's shot, then yes that definitely would take away from the significance of the play.

Those plays you name only prevented a 3-1 deficit because the team won it in the second overtime. They didn't accomplish a win by themselves. The fact that there are two separate plays that you are mentioning kind of defeats your argument in itself. Which one is greater?

What if I had said "the greatest game winner"?

[ShelC]

He looks to be in great shape, which is awesome. His handles, in a video that’s supposedly highlighting his handles, still look Stanley-from-The-Office-esque.

Dribbling thru the legs a bunch of times in one spot 16ft from the basket and putting up a jumper isn't having "handles". It's just more of the same from him.

He does look leaner and bit bouncier, which should help him down low against the bigger bodies when he's boxing out and defending the post and trying to move people near the rim for those easy dunks he'll be getting off drives from Book, Beal and KD.

In fairness to Deandre, it said he is working on his handles. Doesn't mean he's there yet. He has a long way to go but it's good that he's working on them.

As far as the leanness, I'm not so sure it's going to help him down low against bigger bodies. Especially with his penchant for avoiding contact. I was a much better rebounder when I was overweight. Last time I went out more recently since I got in shape, I was getting pushed around like never before. Anyway, to me it looks like he's going to be even more finesse. He's starting to look more like a small forward. I'm actually a little worried that he's too lean.

I was being facetious about him being lean and it helping him be more physical down low. Not looking for him to put on 25lbs of bulk and lose quickness or athleticism, but for a guy who talked about "changing the narrative", losing weight and working on the 3pt shot shouldn't have necessarily been priorities.

And we can give him credit for working on his handles, but I feel like we've seen these kinds of videos the past few offseasons where he's dribbling thru the legs a bunch but not really doing anything. It doesn't translate to actual game play; it's like a soccer player juggling the ball 10 times on his feet, doing tricks and kicking the ball into an empty goal. Just based on that video, the work is kinda BS. I've seen and worked with players like that who practice things they're already good at or are easy for them, then they walk out of the gym telling themselves and others how hard they've been working. I can break down those moves individually, but none are really effective against defenders and there's a lot of wasted movement overall.

Going off that video alone, he looks like semi-skilled PF trying to be a SF. For a big who plays small around the basket as it is, the video is pretty frustrating. But it's just one 50 second clip, I'm sure there are other workouts where he's beasting and ripping the rim down.

[Superbone]

He looks to be in great shape, which is awesome. His handles, in a video that’s supposedly highlighting his handles, still look Stanley-from-The-Office-esque.

Dribbling thru the legs a bunch of times in one spot 16ft from the basket and putting up a jumper isn't having "handles". It's just more of the same from him.

He does look leaner and bit bouncier, which should help him down low against the bigger bodies when he's boxing out and defending the post and trying to move people near the rim for those easy dunks he'll be getting off drives from Book, Beal and KD.

In fairness to Deandre, it said he is working on his handles. Doesn't mean he's there yet. He has a long way to go but it's good that he's working on them.

As far as the leanness, I'm not so sure it's going to help him down low against bigger bodies. Especially with his penchant for avoiding contact. I was a much better rebounder when I was overweight. Last time I went out more recently since I got in shape, I was getting pushed around like never before. Anyway, to me it looks like he's going to be even more finesse. He's starting to look more like a small forward. I'm actually a little worried that he's too lean.

I was being facetious about him being lean and it helping him be more physical down low. Not looking for him to put on 25lbs of bulk and lose quickness or athleticism, but for a guy who talked about "changing the narrative", losing weight and working on the 3pt shot shouldn't have necessarily been priorities.

And we can give him credit for working on his handles, but I feel like we've seen these kinds of videos the past few offseasons where he's dribbling thru the legs a bunch but not really doing anything. It doesn't translate to actual game play; it's like a soccer player juggling the ball 10 times on his feet, doing tricks and kicking the ball into an empty goal. Just based on that video, the work is kinda BS. I've seen and worked with players like that who practice things they're already good at or are easy for them, then they walk out of the gym telling themselves and others how hard they've been working. I can break down those moves individually, but none are really effective against defenders and there's a lot of wasted movement overall.

Going off that video alone, he looks like semi-skilled PF trying to be a SF. For a big who plays small around the basket as it is, the video is pretty frustrating. But it's just one 50 second clip, I'm sure there are other workouts where he's beasting and ripping the rim down.

Ah, OK. That makes more sense.

I was like, oh, man. Did he really need to get leaner? I would have been more happy if he had put on 10 pounds of muscle. He's reminding me of the movie Planes, Trains, and Automobiles. "You're going the wrong way!"

[Superbone]

What if I had said "the greatest game winner"?

Then it would have been a much more apt description.

[JeremyG]

What if I had said "the greatest game winner"?

Then it would have been a much more apt description.

Well I guess to sum up my lengthy posts in one sentence: I don't see how the greatest play can be anything other than a game winner.

[Superbone]

What if I had said "the greatest game winner"?

Then it would have been a much more apt description.

Well I guess to sum up my lengthy posts in one sentence: I don't see how the greatest play can be anything other than a game winner.

I can see how. Rex Chapman's shot to send the game to OT is more improbable for example. Gar Heard's shot could be argued. Greatest game winner is much more measurable.

[JeremyG]

What if I had said "the greatest game winner"?

Then it would have been a much more apt description.

Well I guess to sum up my lengthy posts in one sentence: I don't see how the greatest play can be anything other than a game winner.

I can see how. Rex Chapman's shot to send the game to OT is more improbable for example. Gar Heard's shot could be argued. Greatest game winner is much more measurable.

I would definitely call Gar Heard's "the greatest shot" in Suns history.

[JeremyG]

It seems the EG stuff really was false—strange that Marc Spears would get it wrong. Maybe DA was trying to recruit EG?

Please keep us posted of when the Bahamian team is playing and if it's on TV. Thanks.

Their first game is next Monday against Cuba at 3:10 pm AZ/Pacific time (https://www.fiba.basketball/opqt/argent ... nd_results). You can watch all of the games live (and on-demand) here: https://www.courtside1891.basketball/pl ... =gamelinks

I have bad news and good news, though. The bad news is you have to pay $19.99 for the two-month "Max" subscription in order to watch. The good news is that it includes the FIBA World Cup games as well.

A couple of updates on this post:

The USA's World Cup games are blocked in the USA.

The first Bahamas game is at 6:10 pm AZ/Pacific time tomorrow (not 3:10).

[BKinSJC]

And yes I considered game 4 (Keith’s shot is literally in the clip I posted), but those plays did not win the game. Yes, they would have lost without them (same with Ayton’s), but they did not cause them to win (like Ayton’s).

Did you really? And what kind of logic is that? If you lose the game, you cannot then win the game. Are you saying that the ONLY plays that can be considered are ones that, all by themselves, took the team from a certain losing position to a certain winning position, and therefore, say, a shot to take the lead in a tied game shouldn't count? Are you sure you're not just arbitrarily narrowing the dataset to the one, single point that you've decided is the right one?

Also, I don't see your comment on the fact that those plays by Erickson and Sobers prevented an almost certain elimination, where Ayton's shot prevented an early 1-1 tie in a series which didn't go to seven games and which the Suns might easily still have won. Doesn't the overall competitive context matter?

I'm not saying those are the only ones that can be considered, but you have to narrow them down in a logical manner somehow. (For example, if it was game 7 of the Finals and the game was tied and a Suns player hit a shot at the buzzer to win the championship, then that would obviously trump a WCF play.)

But you seem to be missing the point. What you're talking about (1976 WCF Game 4) could perhaps be called "the greatest sequence of plays" or "greatest win," but the whole point of focusing on a singular play as "the greatest play" is that that one play had to do it all, all by itself. So if the game had been tied and/or the Clippers had been able to get a shot off after Ayton's shot, then yes that definitely would take away from the significance of the play.

Those plays you name only prevented a 3-1 deficit because the team won it in the second overtime. They didn't accomplish a win by themselves. The fact that there are two separate plays that you are mentioning kind of defeats your argument in itself. Which one is greater?

The point that I was making wasn't that either of those plays was was the "greatest play" in Suns history. It was that you had established a set of pretty arbitrary rules to determine "greatest," and come to a conclusion that left no room for discussion or argument. So I wanted to, off the top of my head, find more examples that fit your rules, and I did - whereupon you added that, no, in order for a play to be "great" it has to lead directly from a sure loss to a sure win, no intervening circumstances.

Now, obviously, that's something to consider when taking about how great a play is. But I think it's equally valid to consider the likely or near-certain outcomes if the play doesn't happen the way it did, and to take into account all sorts of after-the-fact context like how it affected the games or series or even seasons that followed, the unlikeliness or degree of difficulty of the outcome, the athleticism on display, the impact on the legacies of the players and coaches involved, even seemingly unrelated stuff like the reactions of players on both sides or the excitement of the announcers. I'd consider all of that in determining how "great" a play is, and all of it is the reason why some plays endure and some go by the wayside.

What if I had said "the greatest game winner"?

But you didn't say that. If you had, then you improve your argument considerably, because you eliminate a lot of plays. Although you still have to define your terms: do only true buzzer beaters count? If not, how much or little time can the opponents be left with to try to respond before it's no longer a "game winner"? Does Jordan in '98 count? What about Paxson?

[BKinSJC]

What if I had said "the greatest game winner"?

Then it would have been a much more apt description.

Well I guess to sum up my lengthy posts in one sentence: I don't see how the greatest play can be anything other than a game winner.

Do you see literally everything in only black and white? Just curious.

And hey, guys! Guess what! Chris Bosh and Ray Allen didn't actually combine on a great play to prevent the Spurs from winning a championship a decade ago, because the shot came with five seconds left and the Heat still had to go to overtime and then win a game 7. Nice try Chris and Ray, better luck next time.

(Small edit to include Bosh, because the guy who gets the rebound and makes the pass deserves equal credit, and I really want Shawn to get equal credit to Tim Freaking Thomas on their version of this play.)

[TOO]

He only sees things in pro Ayton and literally everything else.

[JeremyG]

And yes I considered game 4 (Keith’s shot is literally in the clip I posted), but those plays did not win the game. Yes, they would have lost without them (same with Ayton’s), but they did not cause them to win (like Ayton’s).

Did you really? And what kind of logic is that? If you lose the game, you cannot then win the game. Are you saying that the ONLY plays that can be considered are ones that, all by themselves, took the team from a certain losing position to a certain winning position, and therefore, say, a shot to take the lead in a tied game shouldn't count? Are you sure you're not just arbitrarily narrowing the dataset to the one, single point that you've decided is the right one?

Also, I don't see your comment on the fact that those plays by Erickson and Sobers prevented an almost certain elimination, where Ayton's shot prevented an early 1-1 tie in a series which didn't go to seven games and which the Suns might easily still have won. Doesn't the overall competitive context matter?

I'm not saying those are the only ones that can be considered, but you have to narrow them down in a logical manner somehow. (For example, if it was game 7 of the Finals and the game was tied and a Suns player hit a shot at the buzzer to win the championship, then that would obviously trump a WCF play.)

But you seem to be missing the point. What you're talking about (1976 WCF Game 4) could perhaps be called "the greatest sequence of plays" or "greatest win," but the whole point of focusing on a singular play as "the greatest play" is that that one play had to do it all, all by itself. So if the game had been tied and/or the Clippers had been able to get a shot off after Ayton's shot, then yes that definitely would take away from the significance of the play.

Those plays you name only prevented a 3-1 deficit because the team won it in the second overtime. They didn't accomplish a win by themselves. The fact that there are two separate plays that you are mentioning kind of defeats your argument in itself. Which one is greater?

The point that I was making wasn't that either of those plays was was the "greatest play" in Suns history. It was that you had established a set of pretty arbitrary rules to determine "greatest," and come to a conclusion that left no room for discussion or argument. So I wanted to, off the top of my head, find more examples that fit your rules, and I did - whereupon you added that, no, in order for a play to be "great" it has to lead directly from a sure loss to a sure win, no intervening circumstances.

Now, obviously, that's something to consider when taking about how great a play is. But I think it's equally valid to consider the likely or near-certain outcomes if the play doesn't happen the way it did, and to take into account all sorts of after-the-fact context like how it affected the games or series or even seasons that followed, the unlikeliness or degree of difficulty of the outcome, the athleticism on display, the impact on the legacies of the players and coaches involved, even seemingly unrelated stuff like the reactions of players on both sides or the excitement of the announcers. I'd consider all of that in determining how "great" a play is, and all of it is the reason why some plays endure and some go by the wayside.

What if I had said "the greatest game winner"?

But you didn't say that. If you had, then you improve your argument considerably, because you eliminate a lot of plays. Although you still have to define your terms: do only true buzzer beaters count? If not, how much or little time can the opponents be left with to try to respond before it's no longer a "game winner"? Does Jordan in '98 count? What about Paxson?

What if I had said "the greatest game winner"?

Then it would have been a much more apt description.

Well I guess to sum up my lengthy posts in one sentence: I don't see how the greatest play can be anything other than a game winner.

Do you see literally everything in only black and white? Just curious.

And hey, guys! Guess what! Chris Bosh and Ray Allen didn't actually combine on a great play to prevent the Spurs from winning a championship a decade ago, because the shot came with five seconds left and the Heat still had to go to overtime and then win a game 7. Nice try Chris and Ray, better luck next time.

(Small edit to include Bosh, because the guy who gets the rebound and makes the pass deserves equal credit, and I really want Shawn to get equal credit to Tim Freaking Thomas on their version of this play.)

Now you're just making stuff up. I never that that it can't be a great play unless it leads from a sure loss to a sure win. My logical argument was that, all other factors being equal, the more directly a play contributes to a win, the greater it is.

I guess my definition of "greatest play" is more along the lines of "most important singular play." Now, in a particular circumstance, that could very well be a game-tying three. For that 2006 first round series, I don't think anyone would argue the fact that Tim Thomas' shot was the most important singular play with regard to the outcome of that series. And obviously Ray Allen's game-tying three was the greatest play of the 2013 NBA Finals, as there was no game-winner to compare it to. (I agree with the rebounders getting credit, too.)

Yes, I would count Paxson's and Jordan's shots as "game winners" but I would rank a true buzzer-beater to win a championship ahead of them in terms of greatness.

[BKinSJC]

Well I guess to sum up my lengthy posts in one sentence: I don't see how the greatest play can be anything other than a game winner.

... I never that that it can't be a great play unless it leads from a sure loss to a sure win. My logical argument was that, all other factors being equal, the more directly a play contributes to a win, the greater it is.

I can provisionally agree with that, with the caveat that all other factors are never going to be equal. I don't agree that "most directly contributing to a win" is the biggest factor in determining a play's "greatness", just that it's an important factor.

I guess my definition of "greatest play" is more along the lines of "most important singular play." Now, in a particular circumstance, that could very well be a game-tying three. For that 2006 first round series, I don't think anyone would argue the fact that Tim Thomas' shot was the most important singular play with regard to the outcome of that series. And obviously Ray Allen's game-tying three was the greatest play of the 2013 NBA Finals, as there was no game-winner to compare it to. (I agree with the rebounders getting credit, too.)

I think what you're saying here is: you do see how the greatest play can be something other than a game winner. Because there's more to this exercise than just a list to be checked off without any further thought. Good.

Yes, I would count Paxson's and Jordan's shots as "game winners" but I would rank a true buzzer-beater to win a championship ahead of them in terms of greatness.

Almost certainly, the mythical "buzzer beater in game 7 that turns a championship loss into a championship win" for any team would immediately be recognized as the most impactful single play in NBA history. We've never really had anything quite like that - true buzzer beaters are rare enough that we almost always remember them (see: Book lying on the floor in the bubble) and buzzer beaters in the playoffs rarer still.

Game winning buzzer beaters in deciding games in the playoffs can be counted on a total of two fingers, and they make an interesting contrast: Kawhi over Embiid in game 7 of the Eastern Conference semifinals, the ball bouncing four times on the rim to break a 90-90 tie and send Toronto into the finals, where they won the franchise's only championship. And Michael Jordan over Craig Ehlo in a deciding game 5 (shorter first-round series back then) in 1989 with the Bulls trailing the Cavs 100-99 -- still the only shot in NBA history that turned a game and series loss into a win on a buzzer beater.

So which of those shots is "greater"? The Raptors might have gone on to win in OT (playing at home) even if the fifth bounce on that shot takes it out of the basket. But it took place deep in the playoffs, and the team it benefited eventually won the whole thing, aided by great play from its one-year rental superstar and, frankly, a lot of injuries to the even-better team they were playing. But Kawhi miraculously made it through those playoffs, and that shot is part of his and the team's lore forever.

The Jordan shot was the single most impactful playoff shot ever, in terms of winning a single series. The Bulls were going to lose and depart from the first round; then they didn't, with zero chance for Cleveland to change that outcome. But it was early in the playoffs, and in a year when the Bulls weren't quite ready to take their place as the best team in the East or the league yet. So it didn't lead directly to winning it all that year, but it was a big stepping stone in helping to kickstart Jordan's legacy as the ultimate winner and cold-blooded killer, and the Bulls did get a lot of extra playoff experience, advancing until they ran into a championship-level Pistons team in the Eastern Conference finals.

My point isn't to tell you why one of those shots is "greater" than the other one; I can't do that, because there's no set formula that leads to a "right" answer. For what it's worth, I like the Jordan shot for its singular quality, its timelessness and (most of) the career that it helped to define (not you, 1993, you can fuck off), but I'll certainly listen to arguments about the Kawhi shot; it's magical and great in its own way, and almost certainly led more immediately to a championship. The point is to go beyond algorithmic thinking like "this happened in the first round and therefore can't matter that much; this happened in a year when the team didn't advance that far and doesn't mean as much; this only sent the game to overtime and doesn't mean as much ...." I don't think that works when you're talking about "greatest" or even "most impactful single" plays, because all of the context matters in making this stuff memorable and great.

And yeah, we're talking about basketball here, this weird mix of athletics and art and entertainment and history and human beings doing amazing and crazy and stupid things, and some of us have the audacity to somehow want to feel connected to the whole of it, and want to remember back to the cool ways that it's tied into our lives. And as with anything else that we try to feel connected to, we're going to want to remember and examine and even argue about what we consider to be important, and we're gonna push back when someone is arrogantly dismissive of it. So when you wanted the only possible definition of "great" with regards to all those memories to be the one you arrived at with your one-dimensional logic and your pat "this is the only way" answers, I didn't agree and I don't agree.

[Mori Chu]

The Valley-oop is definitely one of the great plays in Suns franchise history. Greatest, eh, I don't know. But it's way up there. Even if it were the greatest play in Suns history, you don't stake your entire reputation on one play. Being a part of that play doesn't mean you get a free pass for the rest of your career. If I recall correctly, the dude who threw the pass on that play already ran himself out of town.