Dude Weather Subscribe to Secrets Minneapolis / St. Paul
On the Ball
The Three-Pointer: Losing to D'Antoni, Beating Brown
Photo copyright 2009 NBAE (Photo by David Sherman/NBAE via Getty Images)
Game #65, Home Game #34: Minnesota 94, New York 102
Game #66, Home Game #35: Minnesota 108, Charlotte 100
Season Record: 20-46
1. Winning With Brains For A Change
The Timberwolves so rarely win by playing strategically intelligent basketball that Saturday night's triumph over Charlotte was shocking for the rigorous fundamentals of their execution. The Bobcats, a team coached by that supposed wizard of defensive fundamentals himself, Larry Brown, seemed bedeviled as to how to combat the pick-and-roll; another shock, given that the Wolves have consistently abused this most basic play in hoops at both ends of the court for most of this season.
When I asked coach Kevin McHale after the game if the Wolves had had anything to do with the confusion exhibited by Brown's D, he replied, "We found a couple of things that worked and kind of stuck with it, so I don't know." But he did know. A minute later when I commented on the disparity of Minnesota getting 66 in the first half and only 42 in the second, he said it was a matter of less ball movement and of not hitting as many open shots in the second half. Then he said, "If they're going to suck in and overcompensate to the ball and then pick your roll guy up underneath with other players, guys are open and got to shoot, and that's what I kept telling the guys."
The simple but profound story of this game is that the Wolves took what the Bobcats gave them. Charlotte dared Minnesota to beat them from outside and Minnesota obliged, reaping the open jumpers galore both off the pick and roll and with quick swings to the wing and corners. When Charlotte pressured the ball, Wolves' players moved without it, creating plenty of runners in the lane off cuts to the hoop from both pick and rolls and weakside wing flashes. I haven't seen that many bounce-pass assists in the paint in two years.
The two players I've probably criticized the most this season, Mike Miller and Craig Smith, were especially effective together, with the Rhino picking up four of Miller's seven dimes in the mere 21:55 they played in tandem. But the scoring surges that essentially spelled the difference in this game came from being able to go small, without Miller or Smith, and emphasize cuts and ball movement that almost invariably concluded with Rodney Carney being open on the right wing and right corner. And as happened so often during the club's vintage January, Carney's shouldn't-go-in quick release to beat the close-outs were finding the bottom of the net with amazing regularity. Maybe getting kneed in the nuts restored the equilibrium on Carney's jumper. Whatever the reason, he returned from two games off from a "lower abdominal contusion" to hit 8-13 FG, including 4-7 3ptFG.
As a team, the Wolves shot 53.1% from the field, 45.5% from behind the arc, 92.3% from the line and piled up 28 assists to just 9 turnovers. Consequently, it didn't matter that their own defense was subpar, allowing the Bobcats--whose league-worst 93 ppg is a result of both their snail's pace and their below-average shooting accuracy--to convert half their field goals (38-76) and hit the century mark for points.
Sure, it helped that not only Carney but Randy Foye returned to action. McHale has been wielding a shorter bench--just seven played double-figure minutes Friday against the Knicks and eight on Saturday--and the basketball IQ rises when Bobby Brown isn't at the point. The most effective lineup--the one that sent Minnesota on a 16-3 second-quarter surge and also closed out the game strong--was small but intelligent, with Bassy Telfair at the point, Carney and Foye as the small swingmen, and Ryan Gomes and Brian Cardinal as the large swingmen.
Cardinal had one of his classic Cardinal performances, heavily reinforcing every dreadful racial stereotype about unathletic white guys who use their brains to overcome their lack of muscle tone. "He's so heady," McHale gushed. "He has three steals tonight and probably takes two or three charges. That's six defensive possessions he takes from the other team. That's huge. He's just is really a smart, smart player. He helps us in a lot of ways. He made some nice passes; guys were rolling and he was the high guy. If we got behind the defense, someone had to pick up the roll guy or he was open, and we were using Brian as a passer or a shooter at that next spot over, and he made [some really] good decisions on that." When it was over, the Wolves were plus +17 in the 23:54 Cardinal played and minus -9 in the 24:06 he sat.
2. Telfair Agonistes
No one knows where the ceiling will be--and it is not unreasonable at this stage to claim it will be as merely a solid backup at the point--but those who have defended Sebastian Telfair over the past two years have cause to feel vindicated. No one should deny that the KG trade would look a lot better if McHale had been able to pry Rajon Rondo away from Danny Ainge rather than settling for Telfair, but there was half an expectation around these parts that Bassy would never even be fitted for a Wolves uni; that the chucklehead who had recently been busted for gun possession, the latest of the can't-miss playground heroes, was indeed whiffing on a pro hoops career and would be summarily cut to help prune the glut of backcourt hopefuls on the roster. Instead, Randy Foye got hurt and, aside from the fact that he couldn't hit a jump shot, or even that many lay-ups, Telfair had extended periods last year when he proved himself to be the best ball handler and distributor the franchise had seen since Terrell Brandon. Against long odds, it earned him a modest two-year contract.
Bassy was slated for backup duties behind Foye heading into this season. But as Foye increasingly proved himself to be more undersized playmaker than pure floor general, the onus increasingly fell on Telfair to run the show. There have been hiccups--in their own separate ways, both Foye and Mike Miller have seemed envious of Bassy's point guard perch, yet would rather flirt with the fun parts of the job than settle into making a serious go of it. Telfair has ceded some of the ball-handling responsibilities (bad idea) because it provides him with more open looks for his jumper (another bad idea) in the half court. But the bottom line is that the gap between Telfair and the team's next best point guard may be larger than the span at any other position (especially now that Jefferson is out), which is why he leads the team in effective plus/minus.
Both the good and bad news of the 2008-09 Wolves season is that Telfair has gained more confidence in his shooting. Last year, even as opponents were daring him to bury open jumpers as blatantly as they once baited Sidney Lowe (another notorious clanker), Telfair chose 4-on-5 ball movement over the de facto turnover of his frequently awry field goal attempts. The result was the lowest frequency but the highest percentage of makes in his NBA shooting career, as he surmounted the 40% mark (albeit barely, at 40.1%) for the first time in four years.
This season, especially since Al Jefferson went down, Telfair has been jacking it up at a rate not seen since 2005-06, when he posted his best statistical season as a second-year pro in Portland, prompting the Celtics to peddle their #7 overall pick to the Blazers (which ironically turned out to be Randy Foye, promptly dealt for Brandon Roy) to acquire him. (There were other players involved, but Telfar and the pick were the keys to the swap.) At the time Big Al was felled, Bassy was averaging almost exactly 8 FGA per game in an average 25.8 minutes, converting just 34.5%. In the 14 games he has played since then, his volume has soared more than 50%, to just over 12 FGA per game, a proclivity only partly covered by the bump up in his playing time (to 33.6 minutes over the last 14). This frequency of shooting has actually sharpened his eye slightly, at least from two-point range: He's hitting 40.9% of his shots since the Jefferson injury, but almost exactly the same from long range (32.7% before Jefferson got hurt, 32.1% afterwards).
Needless to say, this is not the best use for his talents. "Improvement" to 41% is still lousy shooting, and the more he does it, the worse it is for the Wolves' offense overall. This is especially true when we see what has happened to Bassy's handle during this the post-Jefferson period, when McHale has emphasized more uptempo play. After going 203/87 in A/TO ratio in the 45 games with Big Al, Telfair has plummeting to a horrible (for a point guard) 63/40 ratio in the 14 games since. Now some of that is not having the luxury of earning assists merely dumping it into one of the NBA's best low-post scorers. But some of it has to do with the corrosive role reversal Telfair and Mike Miller have been enacting over the last 6 weeks, something I have dwelled upon (at least with respect to Miller) ad nauseum lately.
By now I'm probably hopelessly biased, but I thought the Telfair-Miller dysfunction was one of the main failings in the short-handed Wolves blowing a winnable game versus the Knicks on Friday. The lanky, long-haired sharpshooter from the corn palace capital of Mitchell, SD and the playmaking wizard from the playgrounds of Coney Island, NYC, continued to covet the other's identity. I ask Wolves fans to flash back to last season and try to imagine a situation where Telfair, not to mention his coaches and teammates, would gleefully allow him to go off for fully one-quarter of his team's shots. Yes, Bassy hit 9-20 FG (45%) while the rest of the team was at 25-60 (41.7%). But Telfair's role on this team is--or should be--to take care of the rock, involve his teammates, and defend the opposing point guard. On Friday, New York's Nate Robinson had more points (25 to 22) on fewer shots (15 to Bassy's 20) because he was able to get to the free throw line 17 times--Telfair couldn't keep Robinson in front of him. Furthermore, Robinson had more assists (7 to 3) and the same number of turnovers (4), and more rebounds (6 to 1) and steals (2 to 0) besides.
Now, it is no shame to be outplayed by a player who is clearly stronger and perhaps quicker than you--Robinson has been on a tear lately. But Bassy was too busy shooting (much more accurately going off the dribble to his left, I might add) to take care of his primary business. And one reason for that is because much of his primary business was being once again hogged by Miller, who had one of those wonderful, Kidd-like lines--12 points, 11 rebounds, 7 assists--that turns to shit if you actually watch the game. Miller also shot just 8 times in 43:34 (as usual, the lowest frequency among the starters) and committed a whopping 6 turnovers. The combined backcourt of Miller and Telfair thus had as many turnovers as assists (10), and the Wolves finished the game minus -7 in turnovers and minus -5 in points off turnovers--pretty much the difference in their six-point loss. When I asked McHale after the game if opponents had begun playing Miller to pass instead of shoot nowadays, the coach took longer to answer than any question posed to him this season, finally ending the pregnant silence with a convoluted statement that concluded with the notion that Miller is probably trying to create too often for others when he should be taking those shots himself.
On Saturday, the Wolves were saved by an assortment of injuries and whistles that gave Telfair a chance to get his act together and play in a manner that benefits his team. Back spasms had temporarily pushed Bobcats starting point guard Raymond Felton to the sidelines, matching Bassy up with the smaller, quicker rook, DJ Augustin to start the second half. Sixty-six seconds into the third period, Augustin drove past a fouling Telfair for an and-on three-point play. A couple minutes later, with 9:12 left in the period and his team comfortably up 15, 72-57, Bassy clanked an unconscionable 19-footer with 8 seconds on the shot clock, exactly the kind of dunderheaded, shoot-first mentality that gets him and his team in trouble. It is the sort of thing an undermanned 19-46 ballclub does to sow the seeds for blowing a big lead. . Sure enough, Augustin came down and drilled a long trey with Bassy way late on the close-out. Then Raja Bell stepped into a passing lane and stole a Telfair feed, dishing to Augustin for a layup that suddenly cut the lead to 10. Stupidly engaged in a retributionaal mano-a-mano, Telfair came down and blew a layup. Twenty-three seconds later, he fouled Augustin, came right to the brink of a technical bitching about the call, and stomped to the bench, flinging down his towel between his knees as he was replaced by Foye.
Saddled with four fouls, Telfair didn't return until there was 8:47 left to play and the Wolves were enduring a 7-0 Bobcat run and clinging to a 4 point lead. Miller was on the sidelines; nursing a hip he had bruised the night before, he didn't play the entire 4th period. Telfair promptly found Kevin Love for one of those running layups described earlier, and, with the help of Cardinal and Carney, spread the floor and promoted ball movement. Brown subbed Augustin back in for Felton at 7:10, but Telfair kept himself under control, limiting Augustin to 2 shots (both makes), one assist and one turnover, while attempting only one shot himself (a missed 19 footer with five seconds on the clock), two dimes and zero turnovers. His feed to Carney in the corner for a trey was the game-sealer, putting the Wolves up 8 with 2:34 to go.
It's no secret that heading into what is expected to be an active and highly productive off-season for Minnesota, the team's biggest needs are a legit big man to defend the paint and a more capable all-around point guard. Every now and then, Telfair teases you into thinking that with a little more seasoning--he's just 23, after all--he might be able to emerge as that complete player at the point. At worst, he seems to be a capable backup, and a relative bargain for the $4.8 million he's getting for this year and next (with a player option for $2.7 m the year after that). But then he starts fancying himself a scorer, or goes into one of those funks like he did in the turnover-filled second quarter against Memphis, or Saturday night's third period versus Augustin and the Bobcats, and the doubts re-emerge. All that said, no player on the Wolves' roster has so dramatically improved his stock over the past two years. And no player has a greater opportunity fulfill a vital need on this ballclub in the next two years.
3. Quick NBA Observations
The Celtics are taking a huge gamble essentially ceding the top seed to the Cavs in order to get Kevin Garnett's knee right. I can't recall a time when the difference between the numbers one and two seeds seemed to matter as much. First, the number two seed has to contend with Dwight Howard and the Magic in the conference semis, while the top seed faces the far easier assignment of disposing of the Heat or the Hawks. Then, assuming they surmount Orlando, the Celts will enter what all expect will be a brutally physical, incredibly close defensive struggle against the Cavs. Having the game's marquee player perform in front of a rabid home crowd in contests where the refs whistles are crucial to the outcome is a clear advantage for Cleveland, even before you note that their home record is 28-1.
Has the regard for a basketball player's performance ever fallen off the table as dramatically as what has occurred to Allen Iverson this season? Sure, there were signs of AI's decline in Denver last year, but some of it could be rationalized as not-enough-ball chemistry with Melo, and Denver's overall dysfunction. But the fallout from the Billups-Iverson swap, and the play of the Pistons with and without the little tattooed machine pinballing himself around the court, makes one wonder if a team will invest even the mid-level exemption for Iverson next season.
Anyone who tells you they know which Rockets, Hornets, or Jazz team is going to show up this spring is lying. It's pretty obvious that the Mavs and the Nuggets will be extremely lucky to see the second round under the best of circumstances, and Portland's uncertainty is based almost entirely on youth. The Lakers and Spurs are known, formidable commodities. But equally plausible scenarios can be laid out for Houston, New Orleans and Utah to collapse in the first round or push the Western elites to the brink of elimination.
Has Mario Chalmers had a better rookie year than Michael Beasley or is he simply the beneficiary of the Paxton Effect playing alongside Dwyane Wade?
According to 82games.com's marvelous sortable shooting stats (http://www.82games.com/0809/FGSORT2.HTM) Lebron James and Dwight Howard are tied for the most "and-one"s, with a whopping 75 apiece through March 13. Wade is next with 65. But in 4th place after that easy-to-guess trio, ahead of other notables like Kobe and Shaq, is New Jersey's Devin Harris, with 55. Jason Kidd has 8. And Dallas still owes New Jersey their first-rounder in the next draft.
Again according to the sortable stats, Randy Foye and Kevin Love rank 1 and 2 in the percentage of their "inside shots" that have been blocked by opponents this season. Foye is at 19%. Love is tied with Chicago's Ben Gordon at 18%.
49 Reader Comments
Good stuff. With neither game on TV, this was very useful as always.
With Telfair, I think the Wolves will have to hedge their bets. However, it should be with a taller 1. There are guys who are similar to Telfair in build and some guys who are taller but more like combo guards. It's also a position that they could fill with any of the picks they have in the first round.
As for Chalmers? I think he's somewhat underrated (based on him not even making the rookie game like Love) but that he wouldn't have the same impact without a combo like Wade who dominates the ball so much. In contrast, Beasley isn't a good system scorer -- he gets his on plays that don't involve teammates. For example, he makes jumpers after taking a dribble or two but not directly off of a pass. I was surprised when Bill Simmons said the Wolves wouldn't trade Love for Beasley ("they would make a face and hang up"); I don't fully agree with him, but I wouldn't do that deal straight-up.
Question: if the economy continues like it does and some veterans have to take 1-year deals, would it serve the Wolves to add a veteran or two with the unstated agreement that they'd trade them to a contender if a deal came up at the deadline? Having Terry Porter and Sam Mitchell were such a big help during KG's early years that I think a similar type of vet would really help. Two unrealistic names would be Jason Kidd and Rasheed Wallace.
Unless and until Bassy is able to drop an average of 8-10 dimes per game, he would come off my bench. If he is in a shooting hot zone and is open, he is obligated to take the shot (assuming none of his team mates are open around the rim).
Bassy also has a difficult time with opposing PGs who beat him off the dribble (CP3) or are more athletic (D-Will).
Cardinal is a players player. He is also the 3rd highest salary player (behind Big Al and Miller, respectively) heading into his final contract year (2009-10).
I'm no expert, but I think that Bassy is making it so that we should look harder for a center than a point guard this off-season. We can get by with Bassy, but we have exactly zero centers right now. If we had a center that was as young as Bassy and could do some limited things as well as Bassy does his limited things, I would be ecstatic.
Lets look at what Bassy does well. He has a good handle and he is generally good with assists. His weaknesses are shooting.
If we had a big 23-yr-old center who was 7 feet tall and could block shots, but had a few flaws just like Bassy had a few flaws, wouldn't you be excited?
My point is that people have much higher expectations for point guard than they do for center, especially on the Wolves. Bassy is doing a pretty good job lately. He has been steadily getting better and he has a great pedigree. He is making steady progress and personally I think his ceiling is really high. Starting point guard high.
Point guards take a while to develop. Bassy is young.
Bassy has the fundamentals. He is fast, smart and is a good floor general. His one flaw is shooting, and it seems that is developing as he ages and gets more confidence.
He had a tough time when he got into the NBA because it is really a different game and there was a lot of pressure on him, and that hurt his confidence. But with time I think Bassy is going to surprise a lot of people.
But my point that I am trying to get to is that Bassy somewhat fills one of the two vital needs for the Wolves. If it comes down to a choice between a big center and a little point guard, go center. Next year we will have Al and the rest of the guys back. Bassy can distribute. We will have a big center cleaning up in there. It will be a fresh new year with lots of possibilities.
I was able to attend both games this weekend (my only two games of the year) and a few things stood out.
1. Brian Cardinal really helped this team on Saturday. He does all the little things and is much less reluctant to shoot than Mike Miller.
2. It's no surprise that Foye is #1 at getting his inside shots blocked. He always drives, ends up a in heap on the floor, mystified at the no call, with the other team on the break. Foye needs to do two things: explode towards the rim while driving and create more serious contact. Exploding towards the rim would help him avoid the blocked shot and creating contact would get him to the foul line. I don't think he can actually explode to the rim while driving. His vertical is only impressive when he is not dribbling (he gets up much higher to block shots than to finish his own shots). I've noticed that Bassy is a bit better this year at creating contact near the rim. Foye needs much improvement. He'd be a much better player if even 20% of those blocks ended up as fouls.
3. Most enjoyable thing about Saturday's game were the 4-5 dunks off of nice passes. Carney had a couple and Love had a couple. Beautiful.
If we had a big 23-yr-old center who was 7 feet tall and could block shots, but had a few flaws just like Bassy had a few flaws, wouldn't you be excited?
As a long time member of the Bassy Appreciation Club I don't want to crow so much as to point out a few things that I think this team absolutely needs to be doing in order to make him even better.
If you take a look at where, how, and when Bassy takes his shots, it is beyond clear that there are certain situations he (relatively) excels in and others that do not give him an optimal chance of putting the ball in the bucket.
He is 3-5% off his jumper from being just about everything anyone could want in an average to slightly above average starting point guard. This team should have enough data on hand to give to the coaches to allow them to give incentive to Bassy to operate from the spaces and situations on the floor that would allow him to operate, more often than not, with a relatively average level of shooting proficiency. When is he most effective in terms of time on the shot clock? Where is he most effective in terms of shooting zones? Is he more effective going left or right? Is he more effective catching and shooting or dribbling into his shot? Bassy can make up 3-5% on shot selection. Most players who are not blessed with a Miller-esque shooting stroke can make up their shooting gap with this sort of approach. The team should be instrumental in helping this sort of thing along. It's not like it would be hard to do.
This team has a substantial but ultimately limited number of assets and time to turn itself into a good squad. Between Bassy and Foye I think the question is this: Which player is more likely than not to give the team a replacement level/average 2 way performer at his position? This question can then be value balanced against each player's worth off the bench. This team needs a guard who can handle opposing players over 6'4". They need this more than they do an athletic big with size. In the modern NBA they can get away with hiding size close to the bucket more than they can out on the perimeter when the game is on the line. Between Foye and Bassy, which player can be replaced in the starting lineup by someone with size and who has the best value off the bench? Who is available to fill these potential roles in this draft? In free agency? In potential trades? In next year's draft?
Ultimately, I think the Wolves are best served by making moves geared around the assumption that Foye would be best as a 6th man. This would require some improvement from Bassy and it would require them to find a specific type of player at the 2 (no more sub 6'4" combos).
Ultimately, I think the Wolves will pick between 6-9 and I think they will have an interesting choice to make. Do they go with a big point like Tyreke Evans or a guy like Evan Turner who can play the 2 and 2/3 while hoping for someone like Nick Calathes or Eric Maynor with the 2nd 1st rounder? Or, if someone like Cole Aldrich comes out, do they ignore their guard issues and go with a big that (hopefully) rounds out their 4/5 rotation for the next 6-8 years? Short of Rubio, I think they hope and pray for a Turner/Calathes draft at this point and then hope and pray that they got Pekovic right or that they can move some assets for a legit 3 or backup 4/5.
Good post as usual, SnP,
Here are my preferences, not that it makes any diff, but it may spur someone to post something better:
1. If Cole Aldrich comes out, and we can take him, do it. Or maybe we take Thabeet, he is looking smoother than I expected.
2. Other than that, I agree we need a bigger defensive oriented 2, like Evan Turner. And we can find one with the 2nd pick, I'm guessing.
3. The one good thing we learned from Mario Chalmers episode is that we can find a PG further down in the draft, and there seems to be several serviceable ones. It's not like we need the next HOF PG, we need help for Bassy. Although if Rubio is available to us (not likely) all of the above must be reevaluated.
An irony of the new analytics around draft picks is the heavier weighting given to youth. It may not apply to the PG position as strongly as others. Thus 4 year college PGs tend to slip down, like Chalmers did, even though the seasoning helps a lot. BWDIK?
I think all this Cole Aldrich talk is pretty silly. If he wasn't from MN, no one would be clamoring for the wolves to take him. He's a nice player and should have a long NBA career, but he's not what the wolves need with our top pick.
Also Evan Turner should not be taken with our 1st pick either. I'd be ecstatic if he fell to the Heat pick though.
There's a discussion on www.twolvesblog.com (http://www.twolvesblog.com/forum/minnesota-timberwolves-den/30344-what-w...) about possibly aquiring Samuel Dalembert or Tyson Chandler in the offseason.
I made a post there that I think has the makings of a perfect offseason.
What it mainly consists of is:
1. Trading Mike Miller for Samuel Dalembert (with other players/picks involved in the trade as well)
2. Getting Rubio by moving up if need-be by possibly trading with Washington. Our pick, Utah/Boston pick (whichever is left, Washington would probably opt to sell it during the draft for a little extra cash), and a 2nd round pick for Washington's pick and Etan Thomas.
We'll have the cap room available to be able to take on one of Washington's large contracts.
3. Drafting Rubio with the Washington pick and then the best available SG/SF with the Heat pick (Turner, Demar DeRozan, James Johnson, etc) There are a lot of solid guys like these and one of them will fall to us.
I think this is the route to go and would be huge for this franchise. We'd be at the forefront of young up-and-coming teams that have the makings of a contender and would bring fans back to the Target Center in droves.
roundhouse--
This isn't even my area of expertise and I can see huge holes in your scenario, starting with the fact that the Wolves can't relieve the Wizards of $7M+ of salary for a boatload of picks--the money has to be close to matching. But even if they could, you are surmising that Washington would be willing to part with the chance to draft Rubio in order to save themselves Etan Thomas's one year of salary and to pick up a couple of relative mediocrities. If only it were that simple...
In terms of finding a big 2-guard, I'm beginning to doubt that the Miami pick will yield a good one. Evan Turner and DeMar DeRozan have both improved their stock tremendously over the course of this past week. Assuming they both come out, we're looking at a couple of Top 15 picks.
If we draft in the 6-9 range, I still think we need to identify the guy that has the best chance of being a superstar, no matter the position. If it's Brandon Jennings, pick him. If it's Jordan Hill (doubt it), pick him. If it's Evan Turner, pick him. We need another star or two on this team, so that first pick has to be with a big-time upside player. Turner, Henderson, DeRozan, Aminu, Jennings....This is the grouping I'd look at closely.
The salaries only need to match when trading over the cap. The Wolves will likely be around $9-10 million under the cap this offseason before the draft.
Taking on Etan Thomas' contract without sending anyone back would save the Wizards $15 million dollars next season when you figure in luxury tax ramifications. That's definitely not chump change.
And then factor in that we'd be giving them one of the Utah/Boston picks, which can be sold for a maximum of $3 million dollars.
So essentially we're giving Washington the #6 pick and possibly $18 million for the #2 pick. I really think they might go for a scenario like this.
I'd do whatever necessary to get the pick to get Rubio. Maybe we have to throw a player in the deal. I'd give up Foye in a heartbeat if it came down to that.
Roundhouse,
Cole Aldrich is a lotto pick either this year or the next. It has nothing to do with him being from Jefferson. The guy is one of the premier big men prospects in all of college ball. Period.
I also think saying that you wouldn't spring for Turner with the top pick while loving him wiht the Heat pick is 100% contingent on where that 1st pick ends up being. Again, if it's between 6-9 and he's the best guy on their board, they make the reach. It wouldn't be optimal but this is a down draft.
Britt, I do think the Wiz scenario is more likely than it might at first seem. The Wiz are in salary cap hell and if they get the top pick (or a top 3 pick) each dollar they take on with guaranteed rookie salary is doubled. If they can move the pick plus a guy like Thomas (along with perhaps a guy like Butler) they can literally save between $25-30 milion each year for the next two years.
The problem here is two fold: the Wiz are locked in to their roster and if they can get everyone back healthy, they are a playoff squad with nice young talent. Second, every team in the league knows they are in between a rock and a hard place and they will ask for the moon (i.e. Butler or Jameson + the pick) for any sort of relief. That's a crap load of assets. Granted, they save nearly $30 mil/year for 2 years sand $55-60 mil is nothing to sneeze at, but it is a possibility because their GM has backed them into an impossible hole.
roundhouse--
My apologies for thinking I knew more than you did about this subject. But even given the scenarios provided by you and S+P, it certainly doesn't seem like Washington wants to punt to save money--didn't they turn down Jamison for Szczerbiak at the deadline, which would have saved them a huge amount of money?
Yes, I see how Etan Thomas is $15M with the luxury tax. But if you have a chance to get a top 2 pick and have Arenas and Haywood and Butler all coming back, why the hell don't you draft Rubio and just eat the luxury, which would seem to be about $11-$12 million overall, with Thomas and the pick? Glen Taylor ate $14 million of luxury money to get Sprewell. I know it is a rough economy, but Washington clearly isn't going in for half-measures--they've decided *not* to back down, right? Besides, if Gilbert is hurt again, they can retire him, a la Terrell Brandon. I'm sure they've already been able to recoup most of this year's salary on him via insurance.
I just lost a lot of respect for John Hollinger over at ESPN http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/columns/story?columnist=hollinger_john&pag...
The problem with people who come up with "systems," like Hollinger's PER, is that they become overly wedded to defending the results. Now Hollinger is saying with a straight face that Marc Gasol is the second best rookie in the NBA this season, with Brook Lopez ranked first. If he seriously thinks Gasol has had a better season that Westbrook, Rose, Mayo, and even Kevin Love, we are watching different games.
Marc Gasol is a water buffalo who can't defend anyone who can chew gun and walk at the same time. But because he can dish and score enough for a gaudy PER, he's the second-best rookie of 08-09? Unbelievable.
The big problem the Wiz have is that they are sitting at $76 mil in salary next year with the status quo. If they land the #1 pick (and its $4 mil salary) that puts them at $80 mil before the tip off and with a lux mark projected at $68 mil. Right off the bat, that's an extra $12 mil they can add to the total. Now they're sitting at $92 mil with a team that won the lottery. Let's say the Wolves approach them and tell them they'll eat Thomas, Thomas and Mike James, or some combination of players. If the Wolves can clear them of Thomas, that brings them down to somewhere in the neighborhood of $71-73 mil and they don't have to get rid of Jameson, Butler, or Arenas while keeping a hold of Young and Blatche. They also keep themselves in line for 10/11 and 11/12 with Butler and Arenas and their young core of McGee, Young, and Blatche.
If the Wolves can eat some salary for the Wiz, they could keep them from spending $90 + mil next year and $80 + the year after that. Is Ricky Rubio worth that much money on top of his $4 mil/year salary? Is he worth the additional $30-40 mil that the Wiz would have to shell out to keep everything together for a year or two?
If this were another city and another team, perhaps, but DC is a corporate/government town with lots of out of town fans. The phone booth will sell the luxury suites with a winning team no matter who is there. Granted, Abramoff isn't there to provide Congressional staffers with free visits, but there are still enough private dollars to allow them to skip a pick without as much of a problem as it would be here. If the Wolves had to sell a #1 pick it would be a disaster. The Wiz can at least rationalize it.
PS: I think you're right about them turning down the Jameson deal. They want to see what this core can do and they're not breaking it up.
Ultimately, I think the Wolves should give it a shot. I'm pretty sure Portland will if they can land Rubio.
SNP,
I am not a salary cap expert by any means but could you explain how a team like the Twolves is able to trade for the #1 and Thomas/Thomas James? If we are over the cap, don't the salaries of players traded have to be 125% + $100K? So do we need to trade almost expiring contracts (Miller/Cardinal) for longer term contracts? I assume that as soon as the season ends, Collins is off the books so he could not be part of a deal.
Do the salary slots for the picks factor into the salary cap ramifications? If they do, I would assume that would make it worse for us - as the #1 pick would have a high salary slot.
I can see how you out and out buy a pick. Just don't get how we take back a big salary without sending similar salary back - which would still kill the Wiz 2009-10 luxury tax.
Britt,
I think Hollinger and his PER numbers are a very valuable tool in assessing value between players playing the same position and/or having the same role. But I think it really breaks down when you start comparing PER of point guards to post players. The positions are so different, most notably in the number of touches per game, that trying to statistically analyze the various aspects being measured seems to always yield a higher PER bias toward the big men. I have yet to see Hollinger adequate explain that - I know he tried a few years ago - I just was not buying it.
But he sure does spark conversation doesn't he?
JAF: There will have to be considerations going back the other way or the Wolves will have to figure out how to get in under the cap enough to allow for them to take on Thomas (or James) without bringing anything back. I think this last scenario would be pretty tough. The other way it to put an expiring deal in there (Cardinal) and they could buy him out and save money (this is where the "+ cash" part of a deal could come in handy). Granted, this was a lot easier and more cost effective for them to do before the deadline, but there is still some savings they can make by taking advantage of the 25%, extra cash, and buyout parts of any contract(s) they get back. Cardinal fits the bill. The Wolves can send back cash if they put Cardinal in a deal....enough to make it 125% + 100k over Thomas' salary (if I'm reading the salary cap correctly)....which would hopefully be enough for a Cardinal buyout + a wink-wink deal from the Wolves to re sign him for the year after he is let go.
As for PER, I'd stick up for Hollinger on this front: Gasol pulls more than his fair share of weight on a bad squad. Ultimately, one of the problems with any stat on a bad team is that somebody has to fill the stat sheet. Gasol may be a big water buffalo but he is putting up passing and rebounding numbers per possession that make him far more valuable than anyone else on that squad. If you take him away, they have more (relative) problems than if you yank away Mayo. In other words, what he does at his position per possession is harder to replace than what they are getting from the comparatively overrated Mayo. The problem here is that he could just be good in the context of the Griz, a team that has very little to offer anyone...even less so than the Wolves. They are a terrible squad with a terrible future.
SNP,
Did you see this from the Weekend Dime at ESPN?
"I think we've got the No. 1 trading asset available and that's money," Cuban said. "It's not so much cap room. It's are you willing to take back money from other teams, particularly in these [tough economic] times."
I think that Dallas or Detroit (Iverson's expiring contract) will be far more likely to take advantage of Washington's situation than we will as I don't see Taylor taking back $$$$
Agreed...the Wolves aren't at the head of the line when it comes to enticing the Wiz into parting with that pick. Pekovic and the Utah pick (if it is deferred to next year) might be enough however. I think Dallas and Portland are going to be the most active teams. Dallas has a team option on Howard the year after next so that can be an effective expiring deal. They could be active near the trade deadline. I feel bad for the Mavs.
Until folks come up with a metric that measures a player's defensive prowess--you know, that other 50% of the time they are on the court--I will find purely stat-driven analysis specious.
Gasol is a perfect example. S+P, who knows and loves stats, defends Gasol as the best player on the Grizz. So why is Memphis better off in the 38% of the time he's not on the court?
Now admittedly, I use stats for this too--and anybody can make numbers do what you want them to do. But over at 82games.com, http://www.82games.com/0809/08MEM13.HTM
you see that while the Grizz score 2.3 more points per 48 when Gasol is on the court, they cede 2.9 per48 in return, meaning they lose .7 pp48 (it should be .6, but I guess it is a rounding off issue). Their effective FG% allowed rises from 50.2% when Gasol sits to 52.4% when he plays.
Gasol's opposing center has a slightly lower PER because Gasol gets to the line slightly more often and doles out nearly an assist per 48 more. But opposing centers have more rebounds and blocks than Gasol and shoot a higher FG%. Finally remember that Gasol is no kid--he's already 24, which is pretty old for a rook, especially given his Euro league experience. He is what he is right now, and what he is is a lousy defender. You don't need stats to see that.
Individual productivity stats, if not linked in any way to team performance, are a bit reductionist, in my view, for the reasons Britt mentioned and also because basketball, like hockey, is not a sport where teammates perform in individual bubbles. Baseball lends itself more to this kind of individual stat-heavy analysis
I think that's the point of the Battier article. Statisticians are getting better at contextualizing individual stats in terms of team performance, but they aren't there yet.
As simplistic as they may be I'm a fan of stats like the Roland Rating and adjusted +/- because they at least attempts to look at individual production in the context of team performance. I also like team stats that allow you to extrapolate the impact of certain players.
My big problem with stats like PER is that they overrate players like Mayo and underrate players like Hakim Warrick.
While CP3, LBJ, KG and D Howard excel by any measure, the name of the game is finding value where the differences between second and third tier players are less obvious and usually distorted. When the time comes, do you overpay for an OJ Mayo or do you try to identify under-the-radar guys who seem to know how to help their teams outplay opponents regardless of what Hollinger says?
For example, there is real value in knowing that a oft-maligned starting PG on a wretched team with two years left on his bargain basement contract has one of the league's best two-year adjusted +/-. That's the kind of player a killer GM will target.
I guess what I'm saying is don't be surprised next year if Bassy is setting up Kevin Durant, Jeff Green and Russell Westbrook and Earl "the Pearl" Watson is splitting PG time for the Wolves with Jeff Teague.
Britt:
I don't know if I disagree with that. I do disagree with the idea that you can make stats say anything you want them to. You can provide a false or misleading context to deploy stats in, but the stats themselves don't lie.
In this case, Gasol's worth (used relatively) is dependent on the overall quality of the Griz. I think when you measure his on/off net gain/loss with OE and DE, he comes out slightly ahead:
http://basketballvalue.com/teamplayers.php?year=2008-2009&team=MEM
Again, that's not a net number; it's just a reflection of how he performs in relation to his team. While he is on the court, the Griz have a smaller negative differential in their OE/DE than they do when he is on the bench.
I do think it's wrong to overlook what Gasol brings to their squad in terms of non-scoring attributes. Here's a break down of how he compares to his brother at the same age:
http://www.wagesofwins.com/Gasols0809.html
Gasol plays on a crap team with crap players and a crap bench. They're worse than the Wolves. He's been in the same boat Kevin Love is in now the whole year...he's the only legit big guy out there for long, long stretches of time.
I would say this: if Gasol's per 48 net differential is only -0.7, then I think it's clear he's one of the best players on a team that gives up -6.2 ppg. Again, in the context of the suck that is Memphis, he is a relatively good player and one of their very few (only?) bright spots. I still can't believe they made that trade. They could have something like Conley, Miller, Gay, Love, and Gasol as their starting 5 with Warrick, Lowry, and Darko off the bench. Granted, there isn't a single player there as good as Jefferson, but at least they have some guys who can be average to above average performers at several positions rather than the 1, maybe 2 they have now.
JAF:
I'm not sure where Cuban is coming from with that. He's above the salary cap, so he has to send players back. The only way he could get money of the Wizard's books is to get a third team in the mix, and I don't see why a team below the cap would do that when they could just absorb the hit themselves and walk away with the Wizards' pick.
McCleak,
I think Cuban is intimating a few things:
1- He is more than willing to pay a premium to buy draft choices - unlike what Portland was able to do with Phoenix.
2- He is willing to trade expire contracts (Stackhouse) to take back salary that will require him to pay luxury tax. That, in itself, is a huge deal with the cap (and luxury tax) both expected to decline significantly in 2010.
3- He is willing to include enough cash to pay off a traded player to a team that will ultimate cut the player. I know there are some limits on how much he can send.
If you're willing to spend the money, there are still ways to build a team even if your at the cap.
SNP,
I appreciate the effort you that put into the stats and analysis. I am hoping that you can comment on something that has typically bothered me - brings me back to those long ago college science classes - amazing the stuff you remember.
So many of these stat values get reported as a digit - many times with a decimal point (or 2) attached. All these stats come from averages (technically means) of data collected over multiple games. So by definition, the value reported is a mean that has an associated standard deviation (typically p=.05 for 95% confidence) Yet I have rarely (frankly never) have seen anyone disclose what the deviation measure is.
The deviation makes a huge difference in determining statistical significance. For example, 11.2 rebounds per game ±0.9 is not significantly different from 10.3 rebounds ±0.5. At least at the 95% confidence level. May look like it but it is not.
So, you look at something like PER which is the amalgamation of numerous mean data values. Yet Hollinger reports it as a singe value - at 2 decimal points no less. I am guessing that if you factored in the deviations, you would find that the PER values are only good to the nearest whole number (XX not XX.XX) and that the difference between a PER of 10 and 11 is probably not statistical significant.
I am looking for your opinion. Having done so much stats work - do you have any insight on what the standard deviations are? Has anyone done that work? Do you have any feel for what the ± value should be for something like PER?
Sorry if this is too technical. I am really curious.
JAF
PS - Hollinger linked to a Harvard study on "the Hot Hand" which was a statistical analysis of where or not the player "feeling it" should keep shooting. That report had 95% confidence interval data that proved, rather convincingly, that the Hot Hand theory does not exist. So, it looks like sometimes deviation analysis is done. Just wondering if you know how often.
Stats...the debates rage on...
Chuckle! Brian Cardinal used to be sort of a poster boy for Roland Beech (82Games) and his "Roland Rating".
http://sfweekly.com/2004-02-11/news/he-stats-he-scores
(pages 3 and 4)
My take is that the stats don't lie, you just have to understand them -- and their limitations. In the case of Hollinger and his PER stat, obviously, he understands it. He also knows that the PER number isn't everything. Otherwise, our man Kevin Love should be Hollinger's leading candidate because of KLove's all-Rookie leading 18.00 PER.
Sadly, Kevin doesn't make Hollinger's list because John considers him to be "defensively deficient". Apparently, though, Gasol's defense isn't bad enough for Hollinger to exclude him from ROY consideration.
Now then, seeing as how Britt describes Marc Gasol as a "water buffalo who can't defend anyone", we must admire his restraint in refraining from using colorfully phrased descriptions of Kevin Love's defensive capability.
(jest funnin' ya,there, Britt.)
I think Hollinger's relevant points were that a) the two "leading" ROY candidates can barely crack this year's rookie PER top ten and b) that we should look beyond the hype.
Perhaps we should look behind that water buffalo, too.
JAF:
I'd start by referring you to the following articles about adj +/-
http://www.82games.com/lewin2.htm
http://www.82games.com/comm30.htm
http://www.countthebasket.com/blog/category/advanced-stats/
I would say this in addition: these are all stats based on linear weights taken on a year-to-year basis. They all use the same stats but give different weights to different things like assists and offensive rebounds. Because of this, when players' surroundings change (switch teams, new players) their "value" changes because they will have to divvy up the stat pie in a different way than they would have before.
To be perfectly honest, I'm not sure how the deviation is calculated on some of these stats. My guess is that they take the population's variance and use the square root. I.e. you take the difference of each data point from the mean and square the difference. I don't think there is any added weight with this part of the equation. I'm pretty sure standard deviation = standard deviation across the board and, if memory serves me right, this is how you add something like that up. Here's a link that attempts to explain it in layman's terms:
http://www.robertniles.com/stats/stdev.shtml
The hope with adj +/- is that over a series of years the deviation will become less and less as averages (and personnel changes) have a chance to play out over a larger scale. The problem still remains that each measurement is taken on a year-to-year basis but I don't think there is any way to work around that and I think the hope among many teams is that they find a way to work with their favorite formula to produce results that further increase their chances of being able to identify quality players. I think this is what Mark Cuban was going for with his adj +/- formula. Ultimately, you have to learn how to live with the deviation and make educated guesses as to when a player is on the higher or lower end of the spectrum.
As for the weights, you can read Hollinger's formula here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Player_Efficiency_Rating
and with a nice chart here:
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/113144-cracking-the-code-how-to-calcu...
This is the part of stat keeping where you can really get into some decent arguments about how much a specific stat is worth. For instance, Dave Berri is often criticized for placing too much of a weight on offensive rebounds. I happen to believe that he's more right than not but that is definitely something you need to take into consideration when using his Win Scores. Hollinger gives OReb a .726 weight. He also adjusts this figure each year to make 15 the average player score. I think that's how he carries such a relatively low deviation. Check out that last post. He specifically takes up the topic of how Hollinger adjusts PER to a league average. It's pretty interesting.
Ultimately, the best way of figuring out what is the best stat could be to take each formula's weights and average them out and apply the results to each stat. This idea was broached in Dean Oliver's Basketball on Paper. He had a chart of each formula with the weights and then averaged them out. What I did in my college player eval formula was to take the average weight of a few key stats and then additionally weigh them according to the two-way importance of the Four Factors. In other words, the more important the Four Factor, the more it got weighted. This is why I'm a big fan of offensive rebounds.
Anywho, it's all fairly subjective and simply a matter of what stat or series of stats you want to place additional importance on. Ultimately, it's a year-to-year calculation that can't be removed from the collective setting of a never-ending change of 10 personnel on a basketball court. You just have to learn how to best deal with the noise.
PS: I think Levi makes a key point. At some point you have to admit there are intangibles within the statistical noise and even your own lying eyes can't overlook some of the cliched little things (or big ones).
At this point in the season, I agree with Hollinger that Lopez is the best rookie. I also think he and Love have the most long term potential. It's very, very hard to find skilled big men and these two guys are amazingly talented. I think players like those two guys are much harder to find than guys like Mayo or even Beasley (even though I think Beasley will work out smashingly in a few years). I think most teams would be very hard pressed to pass on Love or Lopez at the 3rd pick if given the 20/20 chance to go back for a do-over.
Britt, you've been re-blogged:
http://myespn.go.com/blogs/truehoop/0-38-311/Late-Thursday-Bullets.html
1 Telfair was not a consolation prize for Rondo. Telfair was a lock to be gone from Boston due to a combination of on and especially off-court issues. To his credit, he appears to have kept out of trouble with the T-wolves. He has more of an appearance of a throw-in to the deal than anything else. His game has improved, but I'd slot him for a back-up role.
2. Gomes appears to have been the "Rondo" consolation prize, as all accounts had him not being in the trade package until the very end when terms became public. Fairly late in the trade talks, Gomes agent said he had been told that Gomes wasn't in the deal. Gomes also wasn't needed to make the salaries work either. BTW, you mentioned recently that you didn't understand why the Celtics hadn't gone after Gomes this off-season. For a variety of reasons, RFAs are almost always retained by the team holding their rights. Firstly, teams don't like to tie up cap money while the team with the rights decides to match or not. Secondly, it was pretty clear that notwithstanding a non-market offer, the TWs were going to match. Bumping up the bidding needlessly and pissing off a fellow GM in such situations is by my understanding not considered to be good form in the NBA, (especially when you consider that Ainge and McHale are friends).
3. I'm not sure that Celtics had much choice ceding home court to the Cavs (and Lakers) as it was apparent that (a) KG had been injured for some time and it was getting worse and (b) left to his own devices, he would continue to play when it would be obvious that he shouldn't. On the negative side, I'm convinced that on top of being the clear MVP for my money, no one else in the NBA gets the calls that James does (to the point of ridiculousness). However, based on Boston's recent and relatively easy win vs. Lebron (with Rondo getting injured during the game and without KG) I think the Cavs are going to miss Ben Wallace very much against Boston (or the Lakers) and I don't see Wallace realistically coming back in good form. Boston killed them inside and that’s where Cleveland has heretofore matched up well with Z and Wallace.
As for the Magic, the Celtics match up very well with them. In particular, Boston has a lot of big bodies to bang with and box out Howard and they've done a very good job keeping him in check. The Magic have no one that can remotely cover Pierce either. If they’re healthy, Boston is still the toughest team in the league and most likely to be able to overcome home court disadvantages. Otherwise, The Lakers will have too much talent with or without Bynum for a Cleveland team missing Wallace as a last line of defense.
4. The Wolves obviously need a 1 and 5, but I'd argue you need a PG most. I've seen maybe a dozen or so of your games and what sticks out is that you don't have a PG that can run the show especially in crunch time. It seems that you're in so many games where one extended bad stretch kills you or at the end of games your offense falls apart. A top PG keeps you out of those stretches, this is a good PG draft, and with some serviceable bangers at the 5 and some bench upgrades, you're in the playoffs next year.
S+P and JAF--
You guys make me feel like a grumpy old man telling you to get off my lawn with all your fancy numbers. And I appreciate that you did it by having a high-level conversation in my comments section rather than simply calling me out.
I'm not against stats--I'm for anything that helps me appreciate the game I love that much more thoroughly--but they're obviously not in my comfort zone. I'm getting used to the idea that evil digits won't ruin the intuitive pleasure or pain I get from watching teams function and dysfunction--hey, it might even help. But I've never been very good at math or statistical probability, or the dozens of other fundamentals that would make these tools especially useful. I would like to think I could one day combine the experience I have watching hoops with a healthy appreciation of what does and doesn't work for me in terms of statistical models. Following through on that premise is still somewhere in the middle of my "to do" list, however.
I guess at the end of the day I take solace from the fact that Hollinger himself doinks Kevin Love for the same reason I doink Marc Gasol. Because I've got to tell you that if the two men were allowed to guard each other this season, I'm confident that Love would more than hold his own.
Britt,
Actually, I am far closer to you in that I feel stats only tell a part of the story. For me, less than 50%. As levi and SNP point out - context is critical. So is the measurement noise in the attributes.
SNP,
Thanks for the links. Very interesting stuff.
I think it will also be interesting to see if regular season stat hounding plays out in the post season. Billy Beane was quoted as saying "my shit don't work in the playoffs" in baseball. I think the NBA playoffs are a bit more consistant vis-a-vis the regular season than is baseball, but it will still be interesting to see how it plays out. I also think basketball has some sort of code that says you need 3 upper level players to win (2 if you're MJ or maybe Lebron). You could probably build a team of Ryan Gomeses but it won't get you anywhere without the top end talent.
I guess I'd come down more on the side of stats being able to describe or evaluate a large chunk of the game...more so than baseball, at least in terms of utility--for both fans and coaches.
So Britt, what about this idea of yours that there may be some sort of friction between Mike Miller and Sebastian Telfair?
Culture clash between South Dakota vs Coney Island? Jealousy between a "proven veteran" vs "still trying to make it in this league"?
It's an interesting take. I think that it's clear that McHale wanted Mike to be playing differently than he has shown us this year.
Back when Wally came back from his extended injury time, I had the strong impression that Sprewell really didn't like giving up the "3" spot in Flip's offense to Wally. Latrell seemed to resist going to the "2" spot (that he was originally signed to fill). On top of just my observation of tiny hesitations, fleeting facial expressions, etc., their +/- on the court together was terrible (an example of where stats are useful, telling you that something has changed). It's not the kind of thing you typically read in the newspaper.
Statistics don't lie.
People do.
People who use statistics do too.
The problem with statistics and the probabilities with standard diviations is that 99% of us have to think really REALLY super hard to understand them. Once we do understand them we can talk about them very confidently and people start respecting us as stat's gurus and trusting our judgements and interpretations of stats. Then, we get even more confident and pretty soon we start proclaiming things and making assertions about the confidence intervals of our stats. The caveat is that we stopped thinking really REALLY super hard about these things a long time ago and our confidence isn't really as strong as it appears to be.
For example, I'm an economist and I work with statistics. I've had many courses in stats as an undergrad and graduate student. JAF makes the following point.
"The deviation makes a huge difference in determining statistical significance. For example, 11.2 rebounds per game ±0.9 is not significantly different from 10.3 rebounds ±0.5. At least at the 95% confidence level. May look like it but it is not."
Something is wrong here, but its hard to my finger exactly what it is. I think A&P went through the same thing and sort of ducked the question. In other words its been a long time since either of us thought really REALLY super hard about these things. When we see that one PF averages 11.2 rpg and another 10.3 rpg, there is not usually a confidence interval or standard deviations. Perhaps we are talking about Hollingers PER that makes projections over the entire year, but 11.2 rpg is always larger than 10.3 rpg. THe only calculation done was total rebound divided by total games and there is not a standard deviation associated with that statistical average or mean. One PF averages 0.9 rpg than another, end of story. In that sense Statistics do not lie. When a statistician tells you that actually the two PF average the same rpg, you can be confident he is lying.
I should add that JAF was not asserting that 11.2 rpg was the same as 10.3. He was adding a standard deviation to both and in some contexts that might be appropriate such as hollingers PER (which I have not looked at nor do I care anything about). But, for most fans, 11.2 rpg is just that -- 11.2 rpg. THere is not a confidence interval associated with that. Statiticians know that, but sometimes others following the argument can get lost and be easily fooled into believing white is black. That happens a lot with presentation of stats or, at least, that's something we should all be careful of.
Levi--
Not sure if it is friction or a conspiracy of incompetence. I think Miller and Telfair are enjoying their role reversals--it scratches an itch for both. But the team performance suffers.
Now that I am think kind of sorta hard about this, why would someone want to know the standard deviation, or for that matter what is it.
The PF averaging 11.2 rpg with the standard deviation of +/-0.9, might have the following rbound totals for past games: 4, 20, 6, 18, 3, 22, 7, 5, 19... and lets pretend that this averages 11.2. The PF averaging 10.3 rpg has the following total rebounds for past games: 10, 11, 10, 10, 9, 12, 11, 10... and this averages 10.2. The standard diviation is the variation around the mean and the first PF has a much larger variation even though his 11.2 average is larger than 10.3. This doesn't mean that they both average the essentially the same number of rebounds per game. What it means is that we can't predict with any degrees of confidence that for the next game the first PF averaging 11.3 rpg will get more rebounds than the second PF averaging 10.2, because the standard diviation for the first is larger than for the second.
However, this is not the same as saying that they both average the same number of rebounds per game.
APB and JAF:
After thinking more about it (and after admittedly ducking part of the answer ;)) I think I have this to add: The reason why I gravitate towards basketball stats (and the game itself) is because it truly is a team game where you cannot completely break down individual play like you can in baseball. It's a moving organism.
I think the fundamental question surrounding a -0.9 difference in rebounding with a 95% confidence level is not one about the worth of an individual player, but rather what it says (or does not say) about situational differences that occur on the court between lineups x, y, and z. If you can figure out how to eliminate as many situational differences as possible, the closer you can get to being able to have a real, functional use for some of these stats.
Ultimately, I think the most important thing to remember about basketball stats is that they have to be viewed in the context of team play. This isn't a single hitter up against a single pitcher. There are 9 other players out there who have to be taken into account and they can affect your current situation in an amazing number of ways.
Getting back to the rebounding question, I think the real value in this small of a difference (and once again, here's hoping the Wolves have a robust internal stat keeping operation) is figuring out the value of the types of rebounds contained within the whole. Obviously, if someone collected 2.5 defensive rebounds off of free throw misses/game and the player who collected less net boards had 3.7 OReb/game, we can start to make additional value judgments to what these two players bring to the table within the context of their team's play.
I think the problem here is imagining that there can be some sort of individual rating stat that can be used across the board as a way of telling that player x is better than player y. I think Hollinger's PER is often pitched as being this sort of stat.
For practical purposes, I think per possession stats will eventually find their way into a more widely available system where you can create scenarios that take into account floor position, type of shot, and other situational/spacial factors. Ultimately, I think that's the type of information that will most help reduce the big problem with any sort of basketball stat keeping: situational differences. I'm more concerned about these than I am any noise in an adj +/- calculation. Learning about situational differences can also give you information that is transferable to coaches and players. For instance, it could help Bassy know what types of shots and spaces he's most effective from so that he can do the single most important thing to raise his value: improve his damn shooting.
Anywho, long story short: reducing situational differences is the most important goal in figuring out which stats mean what. It's a useless voyage to try and compare individual players with a single forumla. These sorts of things can be helpful, but ultimately, basketball just isn't that type of game.
Also, as for Bassy and Miller, don't forget that Bassy was a high school scorer first and foremost. He didn't become well known by dishing the rock in HS; he put the damn ball in the bucket with NBA quickness against HS talent. With 4 years in college, this could have been his first year in the league and we're talking about a guy who is only a year older than Mario Chalmers. With sufficient talent around him, and with 2-3 more years in the league, I think he'll work out just fine.
S&P
Although, I don't like to crunch numbers myself in regard to basketball and I take a cynical eye to most peoples statistical analysis, I very much appreciate your efforts and interpretations of the games I'm watching using data and your knowledge of basketball. I think stats are there to inform us and to tell a good story. I think you do that very well.
APB,
Thanks for the help. Your last post makes my point far clearer than I did.
What it means is that we can't predict with any degrees of confidence that for the next game the first PF averaging 11.3 rpg will get more rebounds than the second PF averaging 10.2, because the standard deviation for the first is larger than for the second.
Since we can't predict confidently, it follows that it would be hard to say player 11.3 is "absolutely" a better rebounder than player 10.3 in any particular game.
Which dovetails nicely into the situational considerations that SNP discusses in the post directly above this one.
I just wanted to give fans something to chew on before deciding that 1 player is better than another player by simply comparing 2 numbers in a chart.
Thanks APB, much appreciated.
Is it just me, or has this comment thread been seized by actuaries? And, more importantly is all this going to be on the quiz?
Still the best board in hoops.
JAF,
Yes, I don't think you can say that the 11.2 person is absolutely the better rebounder. It depends on the story you want to tell.
I think, for many casual fans, the only thing they are interested in is who averages more rebounds per game. It is one of those statistics. They don't really care how a player got there. It's like collecting baseball cards and looking at HR, Stolen bases, ERAs, BA, RBI,... It is a way to compare players. The same goes for basketball. Some stats have meaning all by themself because fans attach meaning to them. assists per game, rebounds per game, fg%, FT%, Scoring average, Sreals per game, blocks per game. We are interesteed in these stats because they are easy to follow and they are fun to keep track of. We don't necessarily follow them to determine who is absolutely the best player or even rebounder in the game.
I think that people can go beyond these stats to tell a good story and S&P and Britt do that very well. But, it takes some knowledge for the game itself to do that and that's what makes me trust statitics coming from S&P and Britt. Both of them have demonstrated to me knowledge for the game. Often, I don't get the same feeling from others using stats to describe basketball and that makes me skeptical of a lot of presentations of statistical analysis.
Re Bassy...
This story from 2002 seems to say that Sebastian wasn't really that great of shooter back in HS, that his natural talent lies in running the floor. Points, yes. Shooting accuracy, probably not so much:
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/print?id=1421487&type=story
FWIW, Bassy *does* gets my kudos for (apparently) getting a lot of the distractions under control while here with MN.
That he has been flying in a "no-shoot zone" (until recently) with the Wolves seems to me like a bit of overcompensation. Like S&P, I think he'll work out fine -- if he can find a reliable NBA jump shot.
For every person that posts here I'm sure there are many like me who read and rarely ever post. Just wanted to say thank you for another enjoyable salon on basketball.
Wherever this roving party of thoughtful discussion heads next after this season, please let us all know so we can drop in from time to time and soak in the effervescent glow.
I am not a very big basketball fan but my cousin is a big basketball fan she loves any kind of sport. So I am gonna send this site over to her to view and read the articles.
Post new comment
Blogs
Sports
Baseball:
Warning Track Power by Alex Halsted
Sports:
On the Ball by Britt Robson
Society
Weather:
Dude Weather by Jimmy Gaines
A&E
Fiction:
Write Now! by Terry Faust
Retired
Hockey:
Spazz Dad by Todd Smith
Style:
Hook & Eye
Misc:
Is This News?
Fiction:
Yo, Ivanhoe by Brad Zellar
Food:
Consider the Egg by Stephanie March
Wine:
Beyond the Cask
Food:
Food Fight!
Media:
To the Slaughter
Misc:
Outrage by Staff
Food:
Chef's Table
Guest Commentary:
Just Passing Through
Humor:
Spazz Dad by Todd Smith
Cars:
Road Rake by Chris Birt
Commentary:
Read Menace by Tom Bartel
Society:
The Adventures of Melinda by Melinda Jacobs
Politics:
Defenestrator by Rich Goldsmith
Food:
Breaking Bread by Jeremy Iggers & Ann Bauer
Books:
Cracking Spines by Max Ross
Music:
Hear, Hear by Staff
Art:
The Vicious Circle by 6 Critics
Secrets:
Secrets of the Day by Kate Iverson
Theater:
Seen in the City by Staff
Film:
Talk About Talkies by Staff
- Contact:
- Secrets Staff
- Write to Editors
- Send Press Release
- Reprint Request
- Work at Secrets of the City
- Our Address:
- Secrets of the City
- PO Box 3690
- Minneapolis, MN 55403
- (651) 356-8714
©2002-2009 Entropy Publishing, LLC. No part of this site may be reproduced in any form without the express written permission of Entropy Publishing, LLC. except that an individual may print for personal use and/or forward articles via e-mail to a reasonable number of recipients for personal, non-commercial purposes. Thanks to FAMFAMFAM and Tango Project for their icons.
Media Partners
