Should Hunter contributed even more than he did?

[Arizona's Finest]

Its slow so I want to get your guys take on this since i was not on ASFN this time last year...

When Hunter signed for a million I thought it was a great signing at a great price. I liked the guys ability and thought Orlando was a bad situation. With his familiarity with "Q", i thought he would settle into a comfort zone and be that 7th guy off the bench and provide very solid minutes, especially defensivly and rebounding.

Now alot of this has to do with the system we ran but my feeling was that while he played well in spurts, he was not what I thought we were getting. I'm sure someone will provide the stats on this but it seems to me he never really earned D'Antoni's trust over the course of more than three games..

When he signed with the sixers, alot of people on this board were disappointed and couldn't help but wonder why the Suns didn't make a better offer. Now i have been known to be a little too optimistic about the Suns acquisitions (see just this year with Diaw, Bell, Jones, KT, and even eddie House) but wasn't Hunter less than impressive to anyone else besides myself and BC?

I just dont see that guy ever putting it together unless he adds like 40 lbs. Although we could use his shot blocking this year, i actually think he would have gotten more than his share of DNP-CD this year. Im glad we didn't give him a big contract and only time will tell if he will ever really develop...

Oh and a side thread within a thread: Who will end up being the best player of these three- Diaw, Jone, or Barbosa.......?

 

[elindholm]

Statistically, Hunter was almost identical last year to what he was during '03-'04 with Orlando. I didn't watch the Magic play much that season, so I don't know whether there were other differences in his play that don't show up statistically. But odds are there weren't.

Early last season, an Orlando fan came to the board and told us exactly what to expect: that Hunter would show flashes of brilliance, get everyone excited, but then go through long stretches of looking lost and ultimately frustrate everyone. That's pretty much exactly what happened. I don't know what his problem is, and it doesn't matter much at this point. But overall, I think the Suns did quite well to find someone of his caliber on the slag heap. Even with his spotty play, he was good value and made a positive contribution.

Between Jones, Diaw, and Barbosa, I'll guess that Diaw ends up being the best player. No reason.

 

[Arizona's Finest]

I guess i thought that inconsistency being his biggest drawback, he would be comfortable in Phoenix and become a valuable part of our rotation. I was wrong....

 

[George O'Brien]

Its slow so I want to get your guys take on this since i was not on ASFN this time last year...

When Hunter signed for a million I thought it was a great signing at a great price. I liked the guys ability and thought Orlando was a bad situation. With his familiarity with "Q", i thought he would settle into a comfort zone and be that 7th guy off the bench and provide very solid minutes, especially defensivly and rebounding.

Now alot of this has to do with the system we ran but my feeling was that while he played well in spurts, he was not what I thought we were getting. I'm sure someone will provide the stats on this but it seems to me he never really earned D'Antoni's trust over the course of more than three games..

When he signed with the sixers, alot of people on this board were disappointed and couldn't help but wonder why the Suns didn't make a better offer. Now i have been known to be a little too optimistic about the Suns acquisitions (see just this year with Diaw, Bell, Jones, KT, and even eddie House) but wasn't Hunter less than impressive to anyone else besides myself and BC?

I just dont see that guy ever putting it together unless he adds like 40 lbs. Although we could use his shot blocking this year, i actually think he would have gotten more than his share of DNP-CD this year. Im glad we didn't give him a big contract and only time will tell if he will ever really develop...

Oh and a side thread within a thread: Who will end up being the best player of these three- Diaw, Jone, or Barbosa.......?

I don't think the people on this board were all that encouraged when Hunter was signed. Several fans from Orlando told about Hunter's fall from being a starter to being totally ignored by the end of the season. One writer made a serious complaint that seemed to have merit - Hunter is a slow learner.

Your observations about D'Antoni's lack of faith in Hunter seem to confirm that verdict. It is hard for fans to tell when a player is out of position or failed to rotate properly, but the coaches certainly know. My read on it was that the Suns preferred to put their money into veterans who already knew what to do than to wait for Hunter to finally catch on.

This doesn't mean that Hunter will fail in Philadelphia. I suspect that Hunter would do much better in a modified zone defense than the switching man defense the Suns use so he may be fairly effective. He's certainly more athletic than Marc Jackson and the Sixers don't look for much offensie out of the center position anyway. But I think his upside is not as great as some people imagine when looking at his size and athleticism.

As for Jones, Barbosa and Diaw - who knows? Barbosa and Diaw are slated to fight it out for the backup point guard position. Whichever wins gets the minutes and thus wins.

Jones is something of a sleeper. He was a power forward in college and has a less well rounded offensive game than the other two. However, he is a much better shooter and is a fine defender. I think his role is going to be limited this year, but with Jimmy Jackson's age Jones is positioned to be his eventual replacement as Jones develops his overall game.

 

[elindholm]

Whichever wins gets the minutes and thus wins.

And then gets the minutes?

 

[PetryJr]

Whichever wins gets the minutes and thus wins.

And then gets the minutes?

The "minuets", actually.

 

[George O'Brien]

Whichever wins gets the minutes and thus wins.

And then gets the minutes?

Really small units of time.

 

[F-Dog]

Hunter was great, for a minimum-salary FA pickup. He was effective enough to get significant PT in the Spurs series, which is more than you could say for most of the Suns' bench players.


If Hunter ever learns to shoot, he'll be a quality role player (and a bargain for Philly).

 

[Chaplin]

Hunter was great, for a minimum-salary FA pickup. He was effective enough to get significant PT in the Spurs series, which is more than you could say for most of the Suns' bench players.


If Hunter ever learns to shoot, he'll be a quality role player (and a bargain for Philly).

There's no way that Hunter will ever be a bargain for Philly--remember, they are overpaying him to play there. I liked him, but not enough to overrate him like many do on this message board.

 

[Arizona's Finest]

There's no way that Hunter will ever be a bargain for Philly--remember, they are overpaying him to play there. I liked him, but not enough to overrate him like many do on this message board.

And i think a rotation of Dalembert and Hunter is redundent. In fact Hunter is a poor mans Dalembert.

 

[Errntknght]

Hunter could have contributed considerably more if D'Antoni hadn't stuck him in the doghouse so frequently. Of course, Hunter made mistakes and it infuriated coach Mikey but, oddly enough, other players made lots of mistakes and didn't get the same response from him. (My theory is that D'A likes good shooters and since Hunter didn't qualify the coach hated having to play him. With that outlook he didn't notice the good things Hunter did but caught every boo-boo.)

You'd never think it from reading this thread but there was a considerable sentiment here that Hunter should be getting more PT - maybe a third of the posters. A few of us particularly wanted the coach to play Hunter alongside Amare a fair amount so that when the team needed to go big, as one could envision happening in the playoffs, then they'd have developed some rapport on the floor. The very few minutes they did get together, they performed well enough so there was no obvious reason to isolate them from each other. Against the Spurs in the playoffs the two of them were needed together and who knows how much more effective they'd have been if D'Antoni hadn't been so shortsighted.

A couple of other significant things haven't been mentioned here about Steven - he ran the floor very well and finished effectively. Part of the reason the Suns had the open perimenter shots on the break was that Amare and Hunter drew lots of defenders when they came sailing down the lane.

The other thing is that Hunter played over half the season with a severely dislocated finger on his shooting hand - which, I believe I read, he had surgically repaired this summer.

IMO, it was folly for the Suns not to resign him. I don't necessarily see him becoming a much better player than he showed last year but for the Suns his shotblocking and speed down the floor made him a valuable backup - worth what Philly gave him. And like F-Dog said, if he ever develops a shot he'll be a bargain at the price.

 

[Chaplin]

A great example of a post entirely devoted to overrating Steven Hunter.

I was one who also thought Hunter should have gotten more playing time, but let's face it, Hunter will never be a defensive stopper--he'll never, ever be as good as Kurt Thomas. And he certainly can't do what Thomas can do for Amare Stoudemire.

It's nice to have hope, but there was no indication to the Suns that Hunter will ever improve into the type of player we needed. What's more, running the floor notwithstanding, what good did that do for us? You praise his ability to run the floor, but he didn't do either 1) end up on more than a very few baskets, and 2) affect the defensive end of the floor. It's our right to criticize the coach, but he makes millions for a reason, doesn't he?

For someone who was supposed to be our only shot blocker, he sure didn't have any impact in that department. A player that can ONLY shot block isn't invaluable, much to the chagrin of some on this board.

 

[elindholm]

I wanted Hunter to have more playing time too, but that's because I was hoping that, with more time, he would start to become more consistent. That hope was probably irrational.

That said, when he was "on," he did more than just block shots. I distinctly remember going through a phase when I was saying that Hunter was as important to the Suns' future as Johnson was. Of course, the Suns wound up with neither...

 

[Errntknght]

Oh what fun! A direct reply from Chaplain... it's been about three years, hasn't it?

Chap, "...he'll never, ever be as good as Kurt Thomas. And he certainly can't do what Thomas can do for Amare Stoudemire."

If this were in reply to someone saying Hunter was better than Thomas or worth a similar salary, it would make sense, I suppose.

Chap, " ...but there was no indication to the Suns that Hunter will ever improve into the type of player we needed."

Your direct pipeline to what the Suns brass are thinking must have sprung a leak. They offered Hunter double his last years salary, a strong indication they don't agree with your assessment of his value.


Chap, "You praise his ability to run the floor, but he didn't do either 1) end up on more than a very few baskets, and 2) affect the defensive end of the floor."

Hunter was not a scoring machine, averaging .33 points per minute played but that is higher than both Thomas and Dalembert averaged last year... picking two guys to whom he was compared on this thread. Shocking, isn't it?

My perception of Hunter's contribution on defense is vastly different than yours, in addition to the shots he blocked and altered I thought it was wonderful to have a player who worked hard at deterring opponents scoring in the paint. He did attempt to block too many shots but the worst of that was that coach Mikey neglected to inform his teammates that they were supposed to rotate and cover the space Hunter left. The announcers even commented on this laxity a number of times. For what it's worth, Hunter blocked shots at a higher rate than Dalembert and triple the rate for Thomas.


Chap, "It's our right to criticize the coach, but he makes millions for a reason, doesn't he?"

Not only can we criticize coaches here, we are permitted to call our fellow posters total idiots for months on end when they don't agree with our opinions - how crucial signing Kobe Bryant is to the Suns' future, for example.

The going rate for NBA head coaches is millions of dollars but does that make them much better coaches than when they were paid one tenth that much or one hundredth - say back when Red Auerbach was coaching the Celtics? Egad, the audacity, nay, the effrontry, of some posters here disparaging Phil Jackson - the highest paid coach of all time. That must really make your blood boil.


Chap, "I was one who also thought Hunter should have gotten more playing time..."

Why on earth would you if you thought he had no impact on either end of the floor? Did you admire his FT shooting?

 

[Chaplin]

Oh what fun! A direct reply from Chaplain... it's been about three years, hasn't it?

Chap, "...he'll never, ever be as good as Kurt Thomas. And he certainly can't do what Thomas can do for Amare Stoudemire."

If this were in reply to someone saying Hunter was better than Thomas or worth a similar salary, it would make sense, I suppose.

If you don't think that indirectly, Kurt Thomas is a replacement for Steven Hunter, well, I don't know what to tell you.

Chap, " ...but there was no indication to the Suns that Hunter will ever improve into the type of player we needed."

Your direct pipeline to what the Suns brass are thinking must have sprung a leak. They offered Hunter double his last years salary, a strong indication they don't agree with your assessment of his value.

Nice calling the kettle black, there, Errnt--you are definitely part of the group of people on this board that thinks they know what the Suns are thinking--most of the time, it's you being convinced they are incredibly stupid.

Double Hunter's salary was double the minimum--what was it, 1.8? Hunter wanted around 3 per or whatever it was, and we wouldn't offer it. That's not exactly a break the bank type of salary, don't you think? "Double his salary" is nothing by semantics, because double is NOT some great raise for Steven Hunter. This is the NBA, not an investment banking firm, where a doubled salary is a huge deal.

Chap, "You praise his ability to run the floor, but he didn't do either 1) end up on more than a very few baskets, and 2) affect the defensive end of the floor."

Hunter was not a scoring machine, averaging .33 points per minute played but that is higher than both Thomas and Dalembert averaged last year... picking two guys to whom he was compared on this thread. Shocking, isn't it?

My perception of Hunter's contribution on defense is vastly different than yours, in addition to the shots he blocked and altered I thought it was wonderful to have a player who worked hard at deterring opponents scoring in the paint. He did attempt to block too many shots but the worst of that was that coach Mikey neglected to inform his teammates that they were supposed to rotate and cover the space Hunter left. The announcers even commented on this laxity a number of times. For what it's worth, Hunter blocked shots at a higher rate than Dalembert and triple the rate for Thomas.

Again, you are overrating his contributions--Hunter may have worked hard to deter opponents in the paint, but it rarely worked. Our defensive statistics would have been much better than they were.

And again, you are taking blocked shots and making them out to be much more than they are. They are a nice compliment to an overall game, but a guy who only does that isn't worth all that much. What was more apparent for Hunter--his blocks or his defense? Let's talk about blocks--if he was lucky, he would get 2 blocks in a game, much like Amare and Shawn would do. Any 7-footer could probably block 2 shots, no matter his skill level, there is no need to use that to determine how good he was--and if it were, then it would proove that Hunter was nothing special, no matter how much he should or have not played. He was long, which was nice, but it helped nobody--it didn't help us win games, and we all know it didn't help Amare Stoudemire.

Chap, "It's our right to criticize the coach, but he makes millions for a reason, doesn't he?"

Not only can we criticize coaches here, we are permitted to call our fellow posters total idiots for months on end when they don't agree with our opinions - how crucial signing Kobe Bryant is to the Suns' future, for example.

The going rate for NBA head coaches is millions of dollars but does that make them much better coaches than when they were paid one tenth that much or one hundredth - say back when Red Auerbach was coaching the Celtics? Egad, the audacity, nay, the effrontry, of some posters here disparaging Phil Jackson - the highest paid coach of all time. That must really make your blood boil.

Is this some veiled attempt to call me an idiot?

And again, you don't even attempt to address the point, and instead turn it into some kind of personal attack. Not sure why. Nobody said D'Antoni was a perfect coach, I've definitely not said that, so you're implication that I'm of that mind, is wrong and incorrect.

My point, however, was that if you are such a great evaluator of talent, why don't you be a coach? You've been like this for years now, and it's difficult to understand why your hatred for every single Suns coach doesn't make you want to head to AWA and apply for the job yourself. Or maybe you should become a lawyer if you thought that Marcia Clark did a terrible job in the OJ trial--and of course, you could do better.

Chap, "I was one who also thought Hunter should have gotten more playing time..."

Why on earth would you if you thought he had no impact on either end of the floor? Did you admire his FT shooting?

Don't fool yourself. We had a guy who was 7-foot tall but wasn't used. We had him, might as well have used him. I don't think he would have helped as much as you seem to think, and in fact, hindsight is 20/20, and I wonder how much playing him more would have helped at all. Amare wouldn't have had his monster series against SA if Hunter played more, and Hunter playing more would not have improved our chances to defeat the Spurs--so which option do you choose?

 

[PhxGametime]

I think the Team is really going to miss Hunter, KT won't scare anyone defensively... but yes, I know he helps on boards


Time will tell, if letting KT shoot jumper after jumper for 2 PTS - is a better offensive strategy than letting Q lead League in 3PT made and ohhhh a 1st Round Pick?


I do think it's much easier to defend a big that can only shoot from mid-range but hopefully he REALLY helps on boards because I do think, Marion was an elite defender at PF (enough to be considered for 2nd Team) and I call it even with Q's and KT's defensive ability. Q is a much better offensive player and KT is a better rebounder, which hopefully helps on the defensive end...

 

[damo]

and kt's two's pull out the opposing center more than q's threes from last year, which leaves more room for amare to work against the opposing power forward rather than the centerhe had on him last year.
on paper it seems like it will work. although on paper last years suns weren't supposed to make the playoffs.

 

[Chaplin]

I think the Team is really going to miss Hunter, KT won't scare anyone defensively... but yes, I know he helps on boards

You're kidding, right? You think players are more intimidated of Steven Hunter than Kurt Thomas? Seriously?

 

[George O'Brien]

You're kidding, right? You think players are more intimidated of Steven Hunter than Kurt Thomas? Seriously?

Bball31 just doesn't like KT. I'm not sure he overrates Hunter, but he knocks KT at every opportunity as much because he doesn't like his physical style of defense as anything else. The same holds true with his consistent knocks on Bell. After two and half months, I'm convinced this is much more about style than effectiveness.

The notion that we are "overrating" KT is something of a straw man. The basic problems with Hunter is that he is not strong enough to keep big low post guys out of the paint and his offensive skills are minimal. The combination of these two factors meant that D'Antoni was reluctant to play a big lineup even when the team was getting killed on defense playing small.

KT does not have to be "great" to be good enough to play. On offense he probably lacks the range to be much of a three point shooter, but his mid range shot will certain help spread the floor than playing Hunter would.

As a rebounder, KT is a position/blockout type rebounder who does well on the defensive end. When teamed with two athletic rebounders in Marion and Stoudemire, this looks like a very strong rebounding front line. This should be a huge improvement over the 5th worst rebounding differential last season.

Does this make KT great? Hardly. However, I think he will be a good fit and more important will be good enough to let the Suns play big when needed. Hunter was nevery going to do that for the Suns.

 

[Dustbuster]

To me Hunter's greatest asset was the fact that he could get up very quickly and finish well. This ability to catch the ball and finish well allowed him to be a pretty decent Amare replacement on occasion. Nash made him look good on many occasions because he got him the ball in the right place, but to Steven's credit, he usually caught the ball and finished well. In the first game against Memphis in the playoffs, Steven really stepped up when Amare was a bit off his game (nine points) and scored 16 points, added five boards and 2 blocks in about 20 solid minutes. He was the hero after that game.

His athleticism was great, but to me his biggest deficiency was his incredibly poor rebounding. A guy his size, with that athleticism, should be a great rebounder. But Hunter was and is a poor rebounder. He is also a spotty defender, with moments of brilliance (like against KG) and other times where he was clueless.

The poster from Orlando pretty much had Hunter pegged. That being said, he was a great asset last year, particularly for the price, and I really wish him the best.

 

[Errntknght]

Chaplain, "Again, you are overrating his contributions--Hunter may have worked hard to deter opponents in the paint, but it rarely worked. Our defensive statistics would have been much better than they were."

Much better? In 13.8 minutes per game? Ridiculous. 'Zo at his best wouldn't make a team's defensive stats 'much better' in 13.8 mpg.


"He was long, which was nice, but it helped nobody... and we all know it didn't help Amare Stoudemire."

What we all know is that Hunter very rarely played alongside Amare so I'm wondering what you imagine Hunter doing while on the bench to help Amare. Tripping opponents as they ran by?


"Amare wouldn't have had his monster series against SA if Hunter played more..."

Hunter did play more in that series - 20.6 mpg vs. 13.8 in the reg. season - a fifty percent increase. If you're of the opinion that had Hunter played even more that he actually did then Amare would have scored a lot less... well, we're all entitled to an opinion.

 

[coloradosun]

I think the Team is really going to miss Hunter, KT won't scare anyone defensively... but yes, I know he helps on boards


Time will tell, if letting KT shoot jumper after jumper for 2 PTS - is a better offensive strategy than letting Q lead League in 3PT made and ohhhh a 1st Round Pick?

Am I the only guy that now sees that we can use KT on the pick and roll with Amare, it is going to take a lot of the wear and tear off of Nash. Nash will now be positioned at the 3 point arch and I would rather have him shooting 3's than Q.

Hunter was a clutz and never in the right spot to catch a pass, dribble or rebound. Thomas will add to the offense to make it effective.

 

[thegrahamcrackr]

Am I the only guy that now sees that we can use KT on the pick and roll with Amare, it is going to take a lot of the wear and tear off of Nash.

What in the world are you proposing? That Amare runs the pick and roll as a ball handler??

That would be the easiest thing to defend in the entire league. Mark Madsen would score at a higher rate than that play would.

So Amare with his pretty horrendous handle is going to run off a pick and do what?

He won't step out and shoot because he needs to be set to have a good chance at a 17 footer.

He won't drive to the hole because he doesn't have the handle to attack the middle of the floor from the 3 point arch.

He won't be able to pass it to KT because he isn't a very good passer and there is no reason KT's man will leave to double Amare.

He won't kick the ball out to Nash and co because their man won't leave to double Amare in that situation.



please tell me I misinterpreted your words......

 

[Chaplin]

Chaplain, "Again, you are overrating his contributions--Hunter may have worked hard to deter opponents in the paint, but it rarely worked. Our defensive statistics would have been much better than they were."

Much better? In 13.8 minutes per game? Ridiculous. 'Zo at his best wouldn't make a team's defensive stats 'much better' in 13.8 mpg.

How do you know with more minutes he'd improve our defense enough? You don't know that, I don't know that, but apparently, the Suns knew that and thought he wouldn't help.

"He was long, which was nice, but it helped nobody... and we all know it didn't help Amare Stoudemire."

What we all know is that Hunter very rarely played alongside Amare so I'm wondering what you imagine Hunter doing while on the bench to help Amare. Tripping opponents as they ran by?

Amare wanted someone to help him. When Hunter did play with Amare, he was non-existant. Why? Because his man would never have to guard him if he was outside, and he would clog the middle for Amare if he stayed inside. It was a no-win situation for Hunter AND the Suns.

"Amare wouldn't have had his monster series against SA if Hunter played more..."

Hunter did play more in that series - 20.6 mpg vs. 13.8 in the reg. season - a fifty percent increase. If you're of the opinion that had Hunter played even more that he actually did then Amare would have scored a lot less... well, we're all entitled to an opinion.

And...? Hunter did play more, did that help us defensively? Not at all.

 

[coloradosun]

What in the world are you proposing? That Amare runs the pick and roll as a ball handler??

That would be the easiest thing to defend in the entire league. Mark Madsen would score at a higher rate than that play would.

So Amare with his pretty horrendous handle is going to run off a pick and do what?

He won't step out and shoot because he needs to be set to have a good chance at a 17 footer.

He won't drive to the hole because he doesn't have the handle to attack the middle of the floor from the 3 point arch.

He won't be able to pass it to KT because he isn't a very good passer and there is no reason KT's man will leave to double Amare.

He won't kick the ball out to Nash and co because their man won't leave to double Amare in that situation.



please tell me I misinterpreted your words......

Don't you believe that Amare can become the "point center". Why do you think that term was invented.

Amare's jump shot will have to be respected, PF will have to guard him. If Thomas sets a pick and the opposing center switches, Amare will have the matchups he had last year. If I remember correctly Amare predominately had the opposing center guarding him last year and he won those matchups. If they double team, Thomas can knock down the jumper. It will all be determined by who guards Amare.

No you did not misinterprete what I said.