(07-07-2022, 10:33 AM)KillerLeft Wrote: I have learned over the past year that there's a huge discrepancy in this community about just how terms like "wing," and "positionless basketball" are used and understood. I believe these concepts are thought to make communication easier around here, but I've noticed that they're actually the cause of quite a bit of misunderstanding. 

For example, when I think "wing" I absolutely include the 2 (off-guard) with that brush. In fact, from a traditional basketball perspective, I think that term used to mean players whose positions were 2 or 3. I believe many people include the 4 in that blanket these days, too. But, that gets confusing, I think, because Kleber (just an example) can certainly play the 4, but I wouldn't really consider him a "wing." Sure, having a wing big enough to man the 4 full time (thinking Durant, as an example) is a huge advantage nowadays, but I think the distinguishing characteristics are what the player brings to the position, not necessarily that the term can be used to describe any player not playing the 1 or the 5. 

I think "positionless basketball" is the most abused idea of all though. Its meaning seems to have been distorted so much by the talking heads in the media (most of whom don't really understand basketball) that we're all just pretending there aren't positions anymore. There are, of course, because each player on the court must know what position they're playing in order to know what their role is in the offensive/defensive systems. I think the term is meant to allow us to view the mix of players on the court as a mix of skills, not positions, but to me, it's an overused and misunderstood term. 

Back to your point: I agree Green is a wing. I think THJ is, too. I also agree that Ntilikina looks like a guard and has guard in his history, but the Mavs seem to be grooming him to play wing in this system, at least to me. I think his chance to handle the ball ended with his opportunity in NY.

(07-07-2022, 10:33 AM)KillerLeft Wrote: I think that term used to mean players whose positions were 2 or 3. I believe many people include the 4 in that blanket these days, too.

(07-07-2022, 09:30 AM)KillerLeft Wrote: I don't know that this is fair...it might be, but then again, there absolutely IS a set of financial parameters in place, and I'm not talking about only what the rules will/won't allow. I'm talking about a set of "what Cuban is willing to do" rules concerning spending. We don't know exactly what they are, and I'm sure they're contingent on opportunity value (in Cuban's judgement) to a certain extent, but it's clear these rules exist. 

Knowing that, maybe Dorsey is the best option? I'm going to try to give the kid a chance. As @"Chicagojk" mentioned, I don't see him turning down good contract offers from multiple European teams for an NBA two-way at 26. Even those European jobs (the ones from reputable clubs who actually pay what they promise) are kind of hard to get, from what I can tell.

(07-07-2022, 10:43 AM)Jommybone Wrote: This. In today’s NBA, it seems to mean the 3 guys who aren’t tasked with initiating the offense (point) or defending the rim (big). It gets used much like 3&D.

(07-07-2022, 10:45 AM)mvossman Wrote: The financial limitations should have been known at the TDL and before.

(07-07-2022, 10:45 AM)mvossman Wrote: I realize the offseason is not over, but I am losing faith this roster construction is going to make sense by the end, and honestly worried that they are going to do more harm than good if they make a significant move.

(07-07-2022, 10:47 AM)KillerLeft Wrote: I'm not sure I agree that every lineup for every team can always be painted with this brush.

(07-07-2022, 10:52 AM)Jommybone Wrote: I’m not sure who you’d be agreeing with if you did.

(07-07-2022, 10:43 AM)Jommybone Wrote: In today’s NBA, it seems to mean the 3 guys who aren’t tasked with initiating the offense (point) or defending the rim (big). It gets used much like 3&D. Here,

(07-07-2022, 10:57 AM)KillerLeft Wrote: Well, this right here ^^^ is kind of my point. From my perspective, this is kind of what you mean with the following:




I think you've pinpointed the assumption. I think you've accurately laid out what people think the NBA types mean, I'm just not sure it's a correct assumption. 

See what I mean? It's making communication more difficult, even when we're just discussing how it makes communication more difficult. Lol.

(07-07-2022, 11:12 AM)Jommybone Wrote: Funny. When I wrote “seems like,” I meant to express a lack of confidence and leave room for all kinds of exceptions. Don’t think we’re disagreeing on anything.

(07-07-2022, 11:13 AM)KillerLeft Wrote: Ah, well part of the confusion I'm perceiving could be that I'm just not very bright. There are lots of factors involved in communication.

(07-07-2022, 10:43 AM)Jommybone Wrote: This. In today’s NBA, it seems to mean the 3 guys who aren’t tasked with initiating the offense (point) or defending the rim (big). It gets used much like 3&D. Here,

Point: Luka, Spencer, Jaden

Big: Chris, Maxi, JaVale (& Davis? Yes, IMO), Powell

Wing: Everybody else

(07-07-2022, 11:12 AM)Jommybone Wrote: Funny. When I wrote “seems to,” I meant to express a lack of confidence and leave room for all kinds of exceptions. Don’t think we’re disagreeing on anything.

(07-07-2022, 11:24 AM)ItsGoTime Wrote: I think of the term “wing” in the modern day game as mostly a defensive term.

(07-07-2022, 11:48 AM)KillerLeft Wrote: See, here's yet another way wires can get crossed. I find this thinking to be extremely counterintuitive, to the point where I'm tempted to say it's flat out incorrect, but then again I know others who think this same way, like @"Kammrath", for example. 

The point I'm making is less about who's right and who's wrong and more about nomenclature used for the sake of brevity. It's only really useful if it conveys meaning as well or better than a more detailed description. To my mind, using "wing" to mean so many different things, as we are prone to do around here, doesn't achieve that. 

I suspect that due to the origin of the term (a place on the court, identified to help draw up offensive plays), THJ qualifies more than most of the other players originally mentioned, since those are the areas he occupies when he's on the court most often. But, I concede that the term has been modified to also include other types of players, not just players who play on the wings. At this point the term is used so differently by so many different people that it's difficult to truly reach a consensus. 

Sidebar: I think this is part of why some people can't get into basketball, hockey or soccer. In American football and baseball, it's sooooo clear who is playing what position, and with some study even the most casual fan can develop a decent understanding of what each position's responsibilities are on any given play. In basketball, I've noticed that there are folks who've been following the sport for decades whose understanding of that type of thing drastically differs from my own. It's super fascinating, imo, and maybe part of why some of us enjoy the sport so much.

(07-07-2022, 12:10 PM)ItsGoTime Wrote: I think it ties in to your thoughts on the term “position-less basketball”. The two terms started being used around the same time, so to make sense of using both terms, in my head (because, wing IS a position if we use it traditionally), I think of it as a changing of the traditional term to be defensive in nature.

(07-07-2022, 12:24 PM)dirkfansince1998 Wrote: Comes down to offense or defense. For the most part people think of Luka as the Mavs PG. But if we look at the defensive matchup he is a wing or a forward (more PF than SF). In contrast many 3&D arche types like Frank, Bradley or Beverley are defending PGs but are limited to a spot up (wing) role on offense.
Also don´t think that the concept of positionless basketball is completly new. In the 80s Magic was the Lakers PG on offense. On defense Cooper was defending PGs.

(07-07-2022, 12:24 PM)dirkfansince1998 Wrote: Comes down to offense or defense. For the most part people think of Luka as the Mavs PG. But if we look at the defensive matchup he is a wing or a forward (more PF than SF). In contrast many 3&D arche types like Frank, Bradley or Beverley are defending PGs but are limited to a spot up (wing) role on offense.
Also don´t think that the concept of positionless basketball is completly new. In the 80s Magic was the Lakers PG on offense. On defense Cooper was defending PGs.

(07-07-2022, 09:23 AM)mvossman Wrote: Its interesting to me how there was a ton of praising for Nico after the Wood trade, but since then as the offseason has unraveled into complete disaster, there has not been a single mention of him.  I think folks were so hopeful that Nico would turn this FO around, but if you take a step back and look at things from a distance, it was always unlikely that they were going to be able to fix a dysfunctional FO with an over meddling owner by hiring somebody with zero NBA experience.

(07-07-2022, 11:48 AM)KillerLeft Wrote: Sidebar: I think this is part of why some people can't get into basketball, hockey or soccer. In American football and baseball, it's sooooo clear who is playing what position, and with some study even the most casual fan can develop a decent understanding of what each position's responsibilities are on any given play. In basketball, I've noticed that there are folks who've been following the sport for decades whose understanding of that type of thing drastically differs from my own. It's super fascinating, imo, and maybe part of why some of us enjoy the sport so much.