A Major Concern
by jrizzle on Oct 19, 2007 8:26 PM PDT
94 comments
I am typing this diary because something major has been concerning me lately about this dubs team that, to my knowledge, has not been addressed fully.
Last season, what was the major weakness of the team?
If you said rebounding, YOU ARE RIGHT!! ding ding. You could make a case for free throws, but interior strength is why we lost to Utah.
This season, what is the major weakness of the team?
REBOUNDING!
Mullin, Nellie, and Robert Rowell(wait, didnt he used to be the media guy? now hes president?) DID NOT address this in the offseason. This offseason was about cap control, and by most measures they did an awesome job(Bucher called Mully an early favorite for executive of the year.)
Why isn't this talked about more as a failure of the front office? With all the good they did, they did not SUFFICIENTLY address our biggest weakness. On top of that, they traded a guy with a lot of talent and good value around the league JRICH and they didnt even get back someone that could address our biggest weakness.
OK, now for the counters.
But j my fav rizzle, did you even pay attn to this offseason? We traded JRICH for Brandan Wright! Hes a big man, really long, could be a good rebounder.
-Not this year timmy. Has anyone seen him play? I went to that Zalgris preseason game the other day, and he looked like LAST years POB. Seriously, he was lost. Not such a bad thing because hes a rook, u can tell hes got a lot of talent. But the point is, this dude will not make a major impact this year anywhere, let alone the glass.
Jrizzle, wassup dawg. Did you check our draft? We got Stephane Lasme, and the other year we got Kosta Perovic whos now on our team. Lasme, although undersized, is considered a rebounder and perovic is 7 foot 2! owned!
-sorry tim. First, Perovic. Once again, the Zalgris game, he looked awful. so akward on the court, got DOMINATED by their euro big. If he cant play against a euro big, hows he gonna do here? Plus, read nellies comments about him. Hes going to the dleague. Hes done.
As for Lasme, who some have called "the sleeper" to this years team, even tho he hasnt shown anything yet, its possible he will be a rebounder and a good player. But do you see him getting major minutes on this team? Especially with our depth and him being a rookie? So even if hes a decent player, and unless hes FREAKING AWESOME his rookie year, i dont exactly see him getting that much playing time. However, if Lasme turns out to be an NBA rotation player his first year(which I highly doubt), then we will have addressed our need.
Al Harrington. Have you been to warriors.com? Did you stop reading Geoff Lepper? Dude lost TWENTY(count em) pounds since last season! Hes quicker, more athletic, more DETERMINED to grab those rebounds this year. Nellie called him the best player in training camp.
-Since when did becoming really skinny enable you to become a better rebounder? Usually u gain weight to anchor the glass. That point aside, lets say that yes, he will be a better rebounder. By his own estimation, hes going to grab 1-2 rebounds more this year. 1-2? We were outrebounded by 20 in the utah series per game. Al might need to lose more weight.
Hey man, you don't know what you are talking about. You dont speak proper english! LEAVE GSOM! We are a small, running team. We will never be able to really rebound like those other teams because thats our style. Look, last year we couldnt rebound, and we owned most teams at the end. Look what we did to Dallas. We ALMOST beat Utah with getting out windexed to death. Look at Phoenix, they get outrebounded sometimes because of the way they play. We dont need to address this, just get faster and deeper!
-Why hasnt Phoenix won? Dont give me Donaghy or Stern, the Spurs own the suns. Why? Because 1)they have the best player in the game 2)they are soft inside and SA is strong. In the playoffs, you need to have a semblance of some interior strength ala Kurt Thomas(why u think they got him).
Also, it is POSSIBLE to get a player that fits our style and rebounds. Anderson Vareajo is one of those guys. Kirilenko is another. U could make a case for Wilcox. Prolly 10 other guys too. Gooden?
THE ONLY ONLY ONLY move i saw that mully made to address rebounding was Austin Croshere. The guy really isnt a bad player, remember indiana in those playoffs he had some good games. Also, hes a good rebounder and can shoot. So its possible that he finds a lot of time with this squad. If you go read Kawakami, he says that croshere is gonna start! If this is true, we did minorly address our rebounding and this should be lauded as a much better move than most people realize.
So, long diary, yes. But I hope point is driven home. Even in the (meaningless) preseason, L.A. killed us on the glass. And we didnt do much this offseason to address this glaring need. Nellie himself has said its the most concerning aspect of the team this year. So why wasn't this properly dealt with last year?
This FanPost is a submission from a member of the mighty Golden State of Mind community. While we're all here to throw up that W, these words do not necessarily reflect the views of the GSoM Crew. Still, chances are the preceding post is Unstoppable Baby!
0 recs |
94 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
The problem
Sure, we could get Reggie Evans, start him and play him 40 minutes and we'd have awesome rebounding stats...but our win-loss record is going to head in the opposite direction.
The trouble is finding a way to improve our rebounding WITHOUT sacrificing our footspeed and length on defense- how many PF's have the offensive skillset and defensive mobility to slide into the 4 for us and improve our rebounding? The guys that fit are guys that are impossible to get.
Our rebounding woes are tied to:
1. Stephen Jackson, an atrocious rebounder at the small forward position
and
2. Our defensive system, which leaves defenders out of rebounding position.
The Suns get away with it because they don't play D like us, despite playing offense like us:
- Marion and Bell and Thomas were superior individual defenders. Baron is, Jackson is sometimes, but Biedrins isn't as good at defending straight up as Thomas the vet is. Will we get there? Maybe.
- Marion is an ungodly rebounder at the 3 and one of those guys that don't come along too often
Questions? Complaints?
(AIM: JetForze; email: Jon.d.ma@gmail.com)
by OptionZero on Oct 18, 2007 10:22 AM PDT reply actions
OK fine
If War brings peace Dubz wit' it den!
its a good question
But I'm not an NBA GM. All I see as a fan is, problem last year, problem this year. not too much done about it.
Seems pretty straight forward...
It's been discussed repeatedly in different threads but it is the obvious answer to what could have and should have been done.
Skiles is drooling over the kid so far while Nelson isn't overly impressed w/ B. Wright.
I think most of us like Wright's prospects but Noah's size & intensity would have been wonderful on the dubs.
Oh well...
by Joe Frank on Oct 18, 2007 12:08 PM PDT up reply actions
Question
Nelson is impressed with Wright. He pushes rookies hard to get them ready to play. Wright is not ready. We all know that but he wouldn't be here is Nelson didn't think he was a player.
This year the rebounding problem is not solved. I think it has a chance to be better than last year. I would like to see POB and Biedrens play together. Harrington's 14 rebounds was a pleasant surprise. We now know he can do it.
by jarforcefathwerofforce on Oct 20, 2007 1:04 AM PDT up reply actions
basketball
14 rebounds was not a career game high for Harrington. That a player does something once (especially in a preseason game) is not an indicator of the ability to do so regularly. Many things factor into a player's stats in any game, including the matchup and luck. If Harrington puts up 6 or 7 double digit rebound games in a row, we can rethink whether he has the ability. As it is, his 14 indicate that he's a rebounding force about as much as Tony Delk's 50+ point game indicated that he was an unstoppable scorer.
Noah was not a senior. Noah was a junior. Since Noah is currently under contract with the Bulls, he cannot run and shoot in the Warriors "system."
Uh
I'm pretty concerned, too, only unlike you I don't think Austin "KG 0.2" Croshere is any kind of a solution. I'd much rather see them start Harrington, Barnes, Wright, Lasme, or even AB (with POB at center).
mmmm
not people talking about it.
Fair enough
by Sleepy Freud on Oct 18, 2007 10:39 AM PDT up reply actions
also
kg 0.2
Yeah, I read it
Baron-Kaz-Barnes-Harrington-Biedrins should be the starting 5 till Jax gets back. Certainly not the worst rebounding group you'll ever see. KG 0.2 shouldn't even be in the discussion.
by Sleepy Freud on Oct 18, 2007 10:50 AM PDT up reply actions
so then
just some ideas
Josh smith
gooden
wilcox
milsap
andy v
noah?
tyrus thomas?
charlie villanueva?
andray blatche?
the sonics have 4 centers
nene?
Qrich
udonis haslem
darko milicic
others?
lemme just go through that list
Josh Smith: No.
Gooden: Doesn't play defense, not smart enough to play for Nellie. As I've repeatedly, repeatedly said, a big man better have some perimeter skills like passing, or at least be able to grasp how to set a pick and move to empty spots. Its not that easy.
Wilcox: see above, same thing. Also, both guys have prohibitive contracts
Millsap: Would love him, but Jazz won't surrender him for anything on our roster.
Andy V: status up on the air. I'd love him, but Dan Fegan is screwing Andy pretty badly. I'm gonna step back from my initial position (pay him up to $7M) and shave it down to MLE money ($5.5m). Fitment wise he'd be awesome as a backup C.
Noah: Perfect fit as a backup C, especially on a rookie contract. But if we wanted him we would have drafted him and now it's too late.
Tyrus Thomas: less attainable than Josh Smith
Charlie Villanueva: If you don't think Harrington's gonna cut it, why would you think Charlie would?
Andray Blatch: Wiz re-signed him despite zero actual production. It means we're not getting him
Sonics: If they weren't good enough to play for the Sonics, why would they be good enough for us?
Nene: What part of $60M is so hard to grasp? Cost prohibitive.
QRich: Even less efficient than Jackson, although Qrich is a good rebounder from SF. Also cost prohibitive
Haslem: Cost prohibitive and also the Heat are likely to hold on to him as he's most productive young player
Darko Milcic: Mullin wanted him, Memphis beat us. they had they pure capspace to get it done, we had to work a trade of some sort. Too late.
Instead of throwing random bigmen names up, let's think:
- Cost?
- Availability?
- Fit with Warrior's motion halfcourt offense and speed-reliant defense?
- Trading partner matchup with the Warriors?
The goal is not to be a good rebounding team. The goal is to be a WINNING team. Do we really care if we're a poor rebounding team but win a buncha games? I don't.
The solution then isn't to try to pound a square peg (crappy player that rebounds) into a round hole (our system), just for the sake of claiming we rebound.
We just need to be a better team DESPITE the rebounding. That means:
- Shoot a higher percentage
- turn the ball over less
- create and capitalize on opponent turnovers more
- leave fewer points on the line (FT%)
- Added a buncha 3P shooters and mobile players
- Expected improvement from Ellis and a veteran PG and PF
- emphasized during defensive drills in practices
- added better FT shooters across the board (Belinelli, Hudson, Croshere, Azubuike more minutes, etc).
The Suns are a running team that will beat you with speed and 3P shooting. The past few years they got a little bigger with Kurt Thomas and Boris Diaw, semi-legit C and PF's. But now, partly be necessity and partly be choice, they are even faster/smaller than before
- Marion to PF
- Diaw to the bench
- Grant Hill to SF
For us, the goal is:
Run faster, shoot better.
Questions? Complaints?
(AIM: JetForze; email: Jon.d.ma@gmail.com)
by OptionZero on Oct 18, 2007 12:01 PM PDT up reply actions
agreed
when we say "better"...what does that mean? does that mean a "better" result in terms of getting to the conference finals instead of semi-finals? does that mean a "better" regular season winning percentage? or does that mean a "better" team than we saw finish the season?
i'd like a better regular season, but i'd be pretty damn happy to see the same team in terms of getting to the conference semi-finals and playing the type of ball we were playing at the end of last year. my point is that we could finish first in the regular season standings and then be ousted in the first round of the playoffs (aka Dallas).
having said that, of course i'd like to do better. of course i'd rather beat Utah this year if we were to happen all over again. however, i think we can....and it doesn't have to do with rebounding. like OZ said, we just have to get better at what we do.
let's look at the Utah series: despite the rebounding disadvantage, we had Game 2 in the bag. the reason we lost that game was simply because Baron (and Jax) were absolutely gassed. so, the first answer to the puzzle is simply giving Baron another couple of minutes of breather (that's gonna be up to an improved Monta) and we win that game. as far as the other games go, remember that we were in most of them late. another three, another defensive rotation for a steal, another drive to the basket for free throws....and we can win those games - even with the same rebounding disadvantage.
nelson's defensive schemes require a lot of teamwork and coordination...and having this crew in a full training camp being able to (and wanting to) focus on winning as a team....i like our chances for being "better" this year.
Completely agree
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!
by mightymadskillz on Oct 18, 2007 7:38 PM PDT up reply actions
jrizzle is not saying
by thatrabbi on Oct 18, 2007 10:24 PM PDT up reply actions
again
The reason why our offense works with Al/Pietrus/Barnes thus far is because they have 3P range. It's intentional and an integral part of the Nellie offense.
Even removing a shooter would rob our floor spacing, unless that replacement big were VERY good at handling and passing the ball. Those bigs that also rebound aren't available, because those bigs are named Kevin Garnett (or Lamar Odom, ir Shawn Marion, etc).
Wilcox, Gooden...none of those guys have ever been accused of being the brightest bulb in the box. Beyond their lack of shooting, they're also not going to fit into our defense. We start, essentially, 2 small forwards because of the quickness advantage. Harrington can switch onto most 2's and 3's and not look stupid; you can't possibly say the same with Wilcox/Gooden types. They're athletic for power forwards, but they'd never be confused as perimeter defenders.
The amoeba-like quality of our defense is a quality Nellie is shooting for intentionally, and no doubt part of the struggle that POB, Wright, and Lasme are going through. In college, I bet they never had to jump screens or switch on Pick and Rolls the way they had to here.
We've sacrifice rebounding for defensive versatility; I've accepted it. Let's get better at taking care of our own possessions and generating even more steals. If we can rebound better along the way, AWESOME, but I wouldn't change the system (Which virtually all 4's would).
Questions? Complaints?
(AIM: JetForze; email: Jon.d.ma@gmail.com)
by OptionZero on Oct 18, 2007 10:49 PM PDT up reply actions
i am
Option Zero-if we dont rebound the basketball, we arent going to win s h *t. i dont care how well we shoot from the line or how fast we run. its a fact of the game of basketball.
FYI
On another note, OZ I know you're a stat geek, check out that site, it'll be better than free internet porn, I promise.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/about/factors.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/PHO/2007.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/GSW/2007.html
by J Rich 4 MVP on Oct 19, 2007 11:44 PM PDT up reply actions
rebounds, FTs
Offensive rebounds continue possessions. If you hit a high percentage of your shots, it's less of an issue since you don't need (or have an opportunity for) an offensive rebound after your own made basket.
If we could shoot 80% from the line we'd be a better team, but more important than the percentage is the number of trips to the line. Further, 80% is a rather unrealistic goal for a team that was at the bottom of the association. 80% would mean that they were just about the best in the league. A noble goal, but not a realistic one. If the Warriors had shot 80% from the line without increasing their trips to the line last year, it would have equated to a bump of about 5 wins. If they'd shot as poorly as they had, but attempted as many FTs as their opponents, they'd have done better than that.
but also
we are already a pretty good team by my estimation, but we are not going to win anything important unless we rebound, or at least, instead of getting out rebounded by 20, its more like 5-10
please tell me Croshere isn't starting
More Hardware Coming!
I would get excited when I'd see him in games too.
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!
by mightymadskillz on Oct 18, 2007 7:42 PM PDT up reply actions
Shrewd non-moves
Patience Rizzle...the Dubs will be active come the trade deadline. The challenge will be to keep ourselves competitive until we pull the trigger. Expect a team that plays great against some and gets swallowed by others until the time is right to address our glaring weaknesses.
the reason for brandon wright
by Earth to Johnny on Oct 18, 2007 11:31 AM PDT reply actions
Rebounding...
That to me is a big reason we don't board well. We take a lot of 3's! The most in the league by leaps and bounds. All of our starters aside from AB all hang out around the 3 point line. The reason we are so good is because we either drop a 3 in your face or we slash to the hoop for a lay-up or slama jamma all at light speed. The flip side of that is that the Dubs set themselves up to get less rebounds by the style of play and the players they have that aren't "true rebounders" i.e. Boozer, Ben Wallace, Tyson Chandler, Dwight Howard, KG or Marcus Camby. It's a slippery slope when you want 6'7 225 pound slasher "do it all" kind of players to fill the majority of your squad. Nelli wants runners not beefy muscle bound shlubs. If we got Boozer or Dwight Howard, they may not even be at half court by the time we are finishing at the other end. Do you want your cake AND your ice cream too?
Well it's a catch 22 with the Dubs and the rebounding issue. It's like Ying and Yang, peaks and valleys or what goes up, must come down. To have a pure helter skelter run and gun offense AND have a force down low to grab boards would be a Godsend. Zorgon would agree that if Adonal Foyle played 30+ minutes, he could be a great rebounder. Same said with Troy Murphy even though he averaged 10 a night. They're both good rebounders, but they didn't fit our style. Our style isn't suited to be a great rebounding team. That's why if our shots from the perimeter aren't falling, we are in trouble due to our size. That's why just as I have been saying since last years playoffs, that we need better shot selection. With better shot selection(less 3's) we set ourselves up for better opportunities to get rebounds. Go Dubs!
Excellent observation
Expanding on that, I'd like to say that the nature of the shots taken also effect rebounding. For example, when the dubs run slow developing, iso-oriented plays, the defense has a chance to "dig in" for the rebound. However, if the warriors are moving the ball well, making the defenders run around, it evens things out a bit more, as far as rebounding goes. If you watch the games, you'll notice that the dubs get more O-rebounds when the opponents are scrambling around on defense - especially on drives to the hoop.
THIS IS OOOAKLAND!!!
by Tim N Chris Burger on Oct 18, 2007 11:57 AM PDT up reply actions
rebounds and shots
I think that the problem is that the defense they run doesn't emphasize rebounding, instead going for turnovers as a means of getting the ball back without surrendering points. The other part is that they aren't overloaded with guys who are particularly good rebounders. Baron was above average at his position, but it's not a rebound high position. Biedrins was above average. But there wasn't anyone else who was above average for the position they were defacto manning. Some were average (like Richardson as a 3), some where well below (like Harrington as a 4 or a 5, Pietrus as a 4, Jackson and Ellis at any position). One or 2 guys who are above average with 2 or three below average at any given time isn't a recipe for winning on the glass.
Offensive rebounds
So, JAE is right, their bigger problem is defensive rebounding. I also agree with Option and others, that the Warriors could always improve their turnovers or shooting, as opposed to their rebounding. But it will be very difficult to improve their turnovers, since they led the league in creating turnovers on the defensive end and their frenetic pace will always lead to heavy turnovers on the offensive end. Their shooting, which was only somewhat above average, could be improved.
But the easiest thing to improve would be their rebounding, because they were the second worst in the league. They don't have to be good to greatly improve, just better than horrible.
This is what John Hollinger says:
by San Francisco Slim on Oct 19, 2007 8:41 AM PDT up reply actions
shot selection does figure in - indirectly
higher percentage also means fewer possessions in defensive transition trying to stop the other teams' fastbreaks - which would definitely help us as we'd more likely be in better defensive position to screen off on the boards ...
in Nelson we trust
I'm dissapointed that the 20lbs
His 2 or 3 missed layups per game are as or more valuable than 2-3 more rebounds a game, depending on how often those missed layups get rebounded by the defense.
by bloodsweatndonuts on Oct 18, 2007 11:47 AM PDT reply actions
Tim N Chris
Rebounding
Al lost the 20 lbs so he could be quicker on his feet and a better leaper and a better first step, he's still got good size to bang around with, hopefully his weight loss added some quickness to him so he can collect boards better, he was almost completely ineffective when it came to rebounding, I don't think he'll be as bad this year.
You rattled off a lot of names but do you really think any of the guys you named would have improved us that drastically? I don't they're either too expensive or unrealisitic.
Josh Smith - we can't afford him, plain and simple.
Gooden - He was rumored to be on the block but we would have to involve a 3rd team to the make salaries and such work.
Wilcox - I would have liked to see the Dubs go after him but we don't really have anything to offer the Sonics.
Milsap - There's no way Utah is going to trade this kid.
Verajao - No thank you, for what he brings to the table he's not worth the price he thinks he should be paid. He want's like 8 mil a season to be bench player, Mully has proven to be stingy with money this year, I can think of a lot of different ways to spend 8 million dollars better.
Noah - Overrated, I believe Noah is like Verajao 2.0. He was a product of the Florida system, much like Duke players are a product of their system. He had one good season in college, look at his SR year and the drop off he had.
Tyrus Thomas - Could be an option though I don't think we have anything to give to the Bulls for him.
Charlie Villenueva - He's got talent, he can board and shoot from the outside which would be optimal for our system. He might be attainable with the Bucks drafting Yi. Health is a big concern though.
Andray Blatche - I love this kids game but there was no way the Wizards were letting him go.
The Sonics 4 centers - There's a reason you don't know their names.
Nene - Too expensive and we have nothing to offer the Nuggets
Q Rich - You're joking right, not for 8 mil a year.
Haslem - Was considered but if we didn't want to give MP2 for him there must have been a good reason.
Milicic - Too expensive, I don't think we could have re-signed AB and Monta if we would have signed him.
A big reason we didn't go after a big name, like much of these players are, is because of the new found fiscal responsibility Mullin has been showing. It took a lot of shipping out big contracts and I don't think he wanted to bring another big contract back, not right away at least. Don't forget that we do have moveable pieces in MP2, POB and possibly even Monta. Even though none of those 3 have a contract over 3.5 mil we could swap whoever for a low salaried player and bring back the bigger contract with the TPE from the J Rich trade. If anything is going to happen it'll be during the season, I think they all want to see how the season plays out. I think it's plausible that Monta is the one traded because Buike will be cheaper and by the drafting of Marco.
Also the reason we don't board that well is because of the style of defense we play, it puts us out of position. We don't really count on personal rebounds but more of a team rebounding concept. Another thing that can't be over looked is we shoot a ton of 3's, the farther the shot the farther the rebound so we put up more shots with awkward rebounds than most teams. Another thing that people forget is because of the kind of defense we play we get a ton of steals which doesn't completely offset the rebounding woes but it does bridge the gap a bit in lost possesions for the other team.
haha
Questions? Complaints?
(AIM: JetForze; email: Jon.d.ma@gmail.com)
by OptionZero on Oct 18, 2007 12:51 PM PDT up reply actions
Actually,
My conclusion, the dubs should work on taking better care of the ball. Less stupid, unforced turnovers(which, IMO, is a lot more eaisier to control), the bigger the turnover +-.
THIS IS OOOAKLAND!!!
by Tim N Chris Burger on Oct 18, 2007 1:45 PM PDT up reply actions
Our threes
It's going to be difficult to be much better than a .500 team, being the worst rebounding team in the league. Don't forget, Utah rebounded 43% of their misses! That's unbelievable. And we were a better rebounding team then, because we had J-Rich.
The Warriors are a.500ish team as is. I think management will see how competitive we can be with only one rebounder in the rotation, Biedrins, and then they address that issue, with a possible mid-season (or earlier) trade.
by San Francisco Slim on Oct 18, 2007 1:49 PM PDT reply actions
i'm not really worried too much
did we aquire THAT GUY who is just going to grab every rebound, bang in there with the carlos boozers and fit our style on offense? no.
But we got some new guys and it will be addressed by the coaching staff and become more of a focal point in our scheme.
like i said im not too worried about it. i think we will be better. im not expecting a championship or anything this year. i do feel that we have three guys that are right around 20-21 years old that are big men with a ton of athletic ability and talent (some more then others) in Andris, POB, and BWright. Cuz from what i've seen from POB and knowing how young he is i believe he will be a nice player in this league someday.
by Proof on Oct 18, 2007 4:10 PM PDT reply actions
Well
I still think our team will have a good season overall. We're more deeper and our style of play is always capable of pulling off the improbable (except when we play the Spurs). It reminds me of Game 2 of that Utah series, the Jazz outrebounded us by 28 boards but they still needed an overtime just to win the game.
by Five Ten Entertainment on Oct 18, 2007 4:11 PM PDT reply actions
turnovers
This would not have been possible if we played a less aggressive defense and retained rebounding position (which wouldn't have guaranteed a rebound anyways, given our size disadvantage).
Basically I figure we're gonna lose the rebounding battle anyways (unless you have some sort of Garnett + Marion forward tandem, you can't play our style of ball and board also)...so we're gonna sacrifice even more boards and generate a ton of easy fast break points through turnovers. That means a high fg% as a result as well.
Ask alot of other team's fans and they still think we don't play defense because we give up alot of points. They think, oh, our team was just sloppy and we'll beat them any other team. This can't be more false- other teams look sloppy because we MAKE them look sloppy. The league has been complacent far too long- seeing an aggressive blitzing defense is a change. Its like in the NFL when you're used to playing against a bunch of soft cover 2 teams, then you run into a team that mans up on you and blitzes nonstop. You will turn the ball over.
The best part of basketball is that offense and defense are fluid. A turnover changes possession instantly- we don't head to the bench and swap units.
Questions? Complaints?
(AIM: JetForze; email: Jon.d.ma@gmail.com)
by OptionZero on Oct 18, 2007 4:24 PM PDT reply actions
That goes back to my point earlier,
For the dubs, that would be much easier than trying to miraculously become a good rebounding team.
They are what the are. They should just stick to what they do best.
THIS IS OOOAKLAND!!!
by Tim N Chris Burger on Oct 18, 2007 10:41 PM PDT up reply actions
It would be nice
If they were ever able to bring in an athletic rebounder who could also run the floor and defend (hypothetically, a Marion or a Rodman type) it'd go a lot further towrads making them a good team than Nellie asking them extra-specially nicely to "cut out the brainfart plays."
As it is, yeah, they are what they are: a #6-11 seed.
by Sleepy Freud on Oct 18, 2007 11:04 PM PDT up reply actions
I'm sorry, I wasn't being clear
My point is that there are other ways of winning games. It wasn't written on one of Moses's stone tablets that "THOU SHALT LOSE EVERY BASKETBALL GAME THAT THOU HAST BEEN BEATENETH ON THY GLASS." If anyone can find a way around that shortcoming, it would be the Don.
IMO, it would be better, easier and more reliable way to improve themselves if they work on not dribbling the ball off their legs, than to try be what they're not. They just need to find an alternate way of winning games, which I feel they have...
THIS IS OOOAKLAND!!!
by Tim N Chris Burger on Oct 18, 2007 11:57 PM PDT up reply actions
we also
by Five Ten Entertainment on Oct 18, 2007 11:19 PM PDT up reply actions
And yet
by Sleepy Freud on Oct 19, 2007 12:09 AM PDT up reply actions
yeah
by Five Ten Entertainment on Oct 19, 2007 11:46 PM PDT up reply actions
fads
by J Rich 4 MVP on Oct 19, 2007 11:54 PM PDT up reply actions
shoulda kept jr....
fdsa
by J Rich 4 MVP on Oct 20, 2007 12:18 AM PDT up reply actions
yea
Umm... not really
I think it's fair to say Monta, Beans, Wright>JRich. Even if you don't factor in Baron and the effect on a possible extension. If you ask me AB alone is more important to this team than JRich would have been just because he is the only guy on the roster that can do what he does. Either way it's clear that the JRich trade was more complex then just JR for Wright and Cash, the financial side alone will positively effect the franchise for years.
.
We're supposed to be a playoff team!
As for rebounding, that is more important in the playoffs, I think, than during the season. If you look back at the series against Utah we gave away games because we gave up second chance opps on D and also we became lazy late in the game with our shot selection. Also remember that besides B-Diddy we were afraid to take the ball inside against Utah.
We can find ways to beat teams like Utah with forced turnovers and better ball movement, but it wouldn't hurt to have a decent 4 who could come off the bench and make sure we are not giving up too many second chance opportunities. I think a cheap option no one has mentioned is Leon Powe. I liked the little I saw of him last year and he can also give you some scoring down low. I know they have hope that Lasme can develop into that role, but I don't see him being a legit option on offense. I guess we'll see.
Again though, I can see where we will get away with our rebounding during the season, but come playoff time we better have improved or we aren't going to deep into the playoffs.
are we going back to that again
I think it's alot easier to raise our FT% a little bit than to outrebound Carlos Boozer and Tim Duncan.
Not to mention our team was flat out exhausted since we had an inconsistent bench.
Questions? Complaints?
(AIM: JetForze; email: Jon.d.ma@gmail.com)
by OptionZero on Oct 19, 2007 9:27 AM PDT up reply actions
FT shooting
One can always point to a handful of games where timely FT shooting could have made a difference, but in general, FT% doesn't correlate much with wins.
In general, you can predict W-L record via point differential very well. It's possible thus to see what the effect of adding a few more points --all else being equal-- should do to wins. If the Warriors were an average FT shooting team, they'd have won about 2 more games for the season. [Or not. As it was, the Warriors were a bit better than their point differential suggested they should be, mild winning record though outscored for the season as a whole.] That may be realistic--to get to average. IF they shot as well as the best team, it would likely have won about 5 more games total. That's something, but it's not like we're talking about the Warriors becoming the Spurs based on what happens at the line.
The Warriors appear to have added better FT shooters, but unfortunately, they aren't guys who take a whole bunch of FTs. It's usually better to have average, or slightly below average FT shooters who draw many fouls than to have a whole lot of sharpshooters who never get to the line. If the Warriors shot as many FTs as their opponents and shot the same abysmal percentage, based on the increased point total, they'd likely have won about 7 more games. If they'd increased attempts and become an average shooting team, it would have gotten them very close to 50 wins on the season.
Close games are always fluky. Good teams do win the close games, but moreso, very good teams don't play close games. They have larger point differentials on average and don't get bogged down in the end-game.
Agreed
I simply do not see how we can achieve that rebounding. The analysis and theory are accurate, but I can't see how we can execute it. There's no one left on the market (the realistic market, not fantasy) who we can attain to improve rebounding without sacrificing defensive positioning and speed and offense.
A third factor: cost. It's always part of the game. We improved our FT marginally on paper, and might yet get more if Al and Ellis improve somehow. Azubuike has been adept at getting to the line and shoots around 75%, a nice bump from Richardson's sub 70% mark; Croshere is a better FT shooter at backup PF than Pietrus (where he got alot of burn last year); Hudson is probably equal to Saras as the "closer". If POB gets burn at backup C...could he be worse than Biedrins?
It's not like we swapped Baron for Mark Price, sure, but we did all that at minimal cost.
So small improvement, but relatively little effort in gaining it. I think what we are getting is proportional to what we paid, and we hav esome flexibility to wait for a bigger opportunity to arise. That seems to be the theme behind Mullin's gameplan...lie in the weeds, see what comes up, make every call.
Questions? Complaints?
(AIM: JetForze; email: Jon.d.ma@gmail.com)
by OptionZero on Oct 19, 2007 10:15 AM PDT up reply actions
QUESTION
Name what you consider the top two important factors in winning any basketball game any team in general
factors i.e. shooting percentage, offensive efficiency, home crowd, defense offense, etc.
FIRST TWO that come to my head are defense and rebounding.
you?
hrnm
Maybe you should list some specific ones and have us pick.
Questions? Complaints?
(AIM: JetForze; email: Jon.d.ma@gmail.com)
by OptionZero on Oct 19, 2007 10:39 AM PDT up reply actions
it was hard to articulate
four factors
Of course, none of these exist in a vacuum. Teams that are good on turnover margin tend to have better FG% since they get easy shots. Made shots also prevent the opposition from rebounding the ball. Teams that have a high number of defensive rebounds do so in part because they keep their opponents FG% down and just have more opportunities. Offensive rebounds negate missed shots and often lead to high percentage second chance shots. FT attempts tend to come when teams are overpowering their opponents, getting the ball inside at will, getting in position to take high percentage shots.
Rebounds are a very important factor. It's rare that teams that cannot rebound well are much better than average. The best teams rebound, shoot well, and take care of the ball, and often get to the FT line (in part as a function of the above). Be good at two of the three factors (like the Warriors were) and you can be average. Be good at three of the four (like the Suns were) and you can be very good. Do all four well and you'll challenge (or win) the title.
Answer
- Scoring more points than you give up
- Having a better FG% than you give up
by San Francisco Slim on Oct 19, 2007 10:38 AM PDT reply actions
well
fg%
Questions? Complaints?
(AIM: JetForze; email: Jon.d.ma@gmail.com)
by OptionZero on Oct 19, 2007 10:42 AM PDT up reply actions
defensive stops.
Fouling all the time doesn't always affect the defensive FG% in practice. A foul and miss does not count as a FG attempt and as such, doesn't deflate FG%. A foul on a converted shot does count as an attempt, but it's also a made basket. In this sense FG% with the hack-strategy can actually go up. The hack strategy only deflates the percentage if it forces the opposition into changing their shot selection such that a greater percentage of their recorded attempts are on tough shots where there are no fouls.
Sorry
- FG% Margin
- Rebound Margin
- Turnover Margin
by San Francisco Slim on Oct 19, 2007 2:34 PM PDT up reply actions
marc stein
yeah
Ben Wallace gets all his blocks, boards, and steals without fouling. Chandler, to that point, had been unable to do that. That difference, and Wallace's superior passing in Skiles' halfcourt motion offense, is why they did it, and it paid off. They cut their fouls down and kept fg% low as well. The price...yeah, it was high.
Fouls ruin the pace of the game, disrupt offensive rhythm, and give your opponent free points. For a tempo-oriented team like us, ...i've written this before...don't foul. Give up a bucket and run it back instead of hacking away. If your whole team is built to run and run more, then you should play to win by outrunning opponents. I'm not saying give up on defense, but be far more judicious when deciding when to foul (see: Pietrus, Mickael).
Questions? Complaints?
(AIM: JetForze; email: Jon.d.ma@gmail.com)
by OptionZero on Oct 19, 2007 11:06 AM PDT up reply actions
Why don't we have Noah!?
by WhatUSay on Oct 19, 2007 11:38 AM PDT reply actions
ahahaha
I wish there were a way to archive certain diaries. If i find the diaries and stories about it i'll post 'em up here.
Questions? Complaints?
(AIM: JetForze; email: Jon.d.ma@gmail.com)
by OptionZero on Oct 19, 2007 11:48 AM PDT up reply actions
found it
http://www.goldenstateofmind.com/story/2007/10/6/191123/515#extended
Diaries on the topic:
http://www.goldenstateofmind.com/story/2007/10/9/205255/228
http://www.goldenstateofmind.com/story/2007/9/27/134351/979
Enjoy.
Questions? Complaints?
(AIM: JetForze; email: Jon.d.ma@gmail.com)
by OptionZero on Oct 19, 2007 11:51 AM PDT up reply actions
drafta expressa
by mikej on Oct 21, 2007 9:21 PM PDT up reply actions
i kind of agree
Josh Smith
The recent hype about Buke and Belinelli. If they can form an adequate shooting guard combo, I see Monta's talents wasted as the backup to Baron, especially if we can't spare him the 34mpg we gave him last season. Something in the back of my mind is telling me that our up-and-coming MIP with his new And1 shoe deal might become discontent with his role (or lack thereof) on this team..
Would the Hawks consider a trade with the Warriors, with the main pieces being Monta Ellis for Josh Smith? Possibly; I don't see Speedy Claxton or rook Acie Law coming anywhere close to the player that Monta Ellis already is anytime soon. Pietrus is pretty expendable for us as well. Just something to think about as we go through the season and approach the trade deadline, I guess.
P.S. I've read the word "vacuum" on GSoM at least 10 times today. Is that the word of the day or something??
Unlikely
- Big beats small
- Hybrid, hyperathletic big beats combo guard
- Smith plays both end of the court, Ellis doesn't
- Both are about to get expensive, and if you were gonna pay someone, it would be Smith.
- Smith is a hometown ATL guy
If you want Smith, talk Biedrins, our only "blue chip". Nothing else on our roster is attractive; they certainly don't need Pietrus with Childress/Johnson/M. Williams around.
Were I running the Hawks, I'd think about trading Smith for Bynum from the Lakers somehow, as he is a true center. Slide Horford to the 4 and you have twin towers in Horford/Bynum on ROOKIE CONTRACTS for a couple years.
I believe Horford will be, essentially, Elton Brand. Less flashy but probably even more productive in time than Josh Smith, who for all his hype is still flawed (thinks he can shoot J's, turnover MACHINE).
If you want to talk trade with ATL, I'd like to get Josh Childress, local Stanford product. Better rebounder than Jackson, effective defender, good percentages, overall a very efficient role player. Unfortunately he's an RFA.
Questions? Complaints?
(AIM: JetForze; email: Jon.d.ma@gmail.com)
by OptionZero on Oct 19, 2007 5:17 PM PDT up reply actions
asdf
by J Rich 4 MVP on Oct 20, 2007 3:16 PM PDT up reply actions
how about
The Hawks rid themselves of Speedy's $19million contract, and gain two decent scorers who combined for 33ppg last year.
It's not like Josh Smith is god. He's a career 44% shooter from the field with a 27% 3-point percentage and 1:1 assist:to ratio to boot. Don't get me wrong, he's a stud when it comes to defense, rebounding and flashy dunking; but his offensive value just doesn't compare to the combo of Monta and Harrington. And believe me, the Hawks need some offense and I'm sure they're aware of it too: 28th in the league last year in FG%, dead last in 3point%, dead last in points per game. I think that's some motivation enough for them to try to attain some more offensive firepower. Bring back the Josh Smith movement!!
If you were the hawks
Naw dude.
Questions? Complaints?
(AIM: JetForze; email: Jon.d.ma@gmail.com)
by OptionZero on Oct 21, 2007 11:04 AM PDT up reply actions
I've said it before and I'll say it again
Sure Harrington's contract is bad, but Claxton's is way worse since he's not productive.. at all. And look at it this way, if they play Harrington at the 3 position, I don't think he'd be such a cruddy rebounder.
I'm riding this movement until the trade deadline, and you can't stop me, OZ.
lol
Questions? Complaints?
(AIM: JetForze; email: Jon.d.ma@gmail.com)
by OptionZero on Oct 21, 2007 4:17 PM PDT up reply actions
Hawks don't want Harrington again
what would be fun
Does anyone else like Jason Maxiell?
It seems as though we have a number of trading commodities this year, with the expiring contracts of Barnes, Pietrus, Buki, Ellis, and Biedrins(wouldnt trade either of them) I think the W's will almost DEFINATELY make another big deal mid-season. Its almost inevitable.
by BlueNgoldBlood on Oct 20, 2007 11:11 AM PDT reply actions
Player acquisition
BluenGold, i'll transfer your comment up there.
Questions? Complaints?
(AIM: JetForze; email: Jon.d.ma@gmail.com)
by OptionZero on Oct 20, 2007 1:06 PM PDT up reply actions
ELLIS IS TOO YOUNG TO TRADE.
by BlueNgoldBlood on Oct 22, 2007 1:01 AM PDT reply actions
youth
A blanket statement of "don't trade him until he's at least 25"...what does that accomplish, exactly? It's great you love the kid, more power to you, but you've ignored the economic and practical reality of the matter.
His age will certainly be accounted for in assessing his value to either be re-signed or traded; it will be part of considering his potential. Players do not always improve, nor do they improve forever, even if they do improve, you never know how much or how little. Hopefully that relieves some of the pain your brain is feeling.
Essentially, all I'm saying:
No, we shouldn't stop talking about dealing Ellis because it is a reasonable possibility. If a deal comes along that makes the team better, do it.
Questions? Complaints?
(AIM: JetForze; email: Jon.d.ma@gmail.com)
by OptionZero on Oct 22, 2007 8:31 AM PDT up reply actions
Trading Monta
So my question is do you really think that there is a big chance he is traded this year? Of course if we had an opportunity to land an impact player he would almost certainly be involved, but otherwise I don't really see it.
I think his contract status kind of complicates things. I think the fact that he is due up in the offseason and the small size of his current deal makes it hard to get good value back unless he is a part of a bigger deal.
What do you think?
.
by olympicmike on Oct 22, 2007 12:34 PM PDT up reply actions
Ellis
Ellis, Barnes, Pietrus, and Azubuike will be free agents.
Assuming Biedrins gets his $10M extension and we keep our first rounder, our payroll will be roughly $60M. The cap is around $58M, and the lux tax will be around $68M (it's now at $66M or so).
That leaves $8M to play with under the luxury tax. Ellis figures to make about $6-9M (yes, I know, a broad range).
Entering next offseason our needs will be:
#1A: true backup point guard
#2: small forward
#3: possibly, backup center
Here are the two routes I see:
- Re-sign Ellis for $6-8M. That means our only assets remaining would be our first rounder, second rounder, and veteran minimum contracts. We likely wouldn't be able to use the full MLE since we'd be pushing the cap, but it might be available. This means the same team as this year without Pietrus and without one of Azubuike/Barnes...plus draft picks.
- Trade Ellis, likely for draft picks (at least one lottery). Re-sign Azubuike for the $5M (the most he can make). Between multiple picks and the MLE or TPE, we could get a backup PG and backup SF rather easily. This gives us an opportunity to flesh out the bench pretty well.
Hypothetically, I would deal with Seattle. They own the '08 and '10 Phoenix first rounders with no lottery protection, and I'd be pretty happy with that. Then I'd re-sign Azubuike. At the draft, I'd have two first rounders this year; I could probably move up or down a bit and target someone I like aggressively.
I'd let Barnes walk, then use the MLE on the best available young SF I could find. There are quite a few hitting the market, one is bound to be underpaid: Trevor Ariza, Martell Webster (RFA), Ryan Gomes, Ricky Davis, that's just off the top of my head. Rasual Butler could probably be had with the TPE fairly easily as well, and he's basically Matt Barnes.
Questions? Complaints?
(AIM: JetForze; email: Jon.d.ma@gmail.com)
by OptionZero on Oct 22, 2007 1:32 PM PDT up reply actions
numbers
Entering this season, the Warriors are at about $58.8million in committed salary as I compute it, including the buyouts and that part of the contracts for Hudson and Croshere are paid by the Association. They're in no danger this year of hitting the tax.
If Biedrins gets a contract averaging $10mil over 6 years, that will give him a starting salary at about $8million next season. Obviously this is a guess. I'd figure $9million (equating to 68/6) is a safer guestimate just for planning purposes.
Assuming Pietrus and Barnes are at most an MLE between the two and one is gone (and if both are gone, it means Azubuike is getting the MLE instead), they're in for $~65million without an Ellis extension or signing any draft picks. That's leaving a pretty tiny pool to keep Ellis without moving someone else.
MLE
The Arenas provision means that if Azubuike becomes a force, it's very hard for them to lose him, but it also requires that they don't waste the MLE first. The provision doesn't give them anything other than this to offer him. It just makes it very, very difficult for another team to offer him more than the MLE, which is a figure we can match.
JAE
From Question 19 of the Coon FAQ:
If the player was a first round draft pick and just completed the second year of his rookie scale contract, but his team did not exercise their option to extend the contract for the third season (see question number 38), then this exception cannot be used to give him a salary greater than he would have received had the team exercised their third year option. In other words, teams can't decline the option in order to get around the salary scale and give the player more money.
If the player is a restricted free agent with two years of service and receives an offer sheet from a new team, the player's prior team may use the Early Bird exception to match the offer sheet (see question number 36 for restricted free agency).
What I take from this:
- The MLE and Early Bird Exception are listed separately and therefore separate mechanisms. It would be possible to use the MLE on someone (Barnes) and the Early Bird Exception on someone else (Azubuike).
- Azubuike qualifies:
- Two years of service (midseason last year, this year)
- Has not changed teams or been waived
- may be re-signed to 175% of his previous contrac t (which is less than $1M) or the average player salary (equal to the MLE), whichever is great (the MLE is greater).
What the Gilbert Arenas rule does is limit what OTHER teams can offer him: the first two years are MLE money, then escalate to whatever he would have made as a UFA during the first year of his contract ($13M IIRC).
Combining the Gilbert Arenas Rule and the Early Bird Exception:
- No one else can start him at more than the MLE.
- We can give him MLE money without using the MLE
In the context of our team, the question then becomes how you want to spend the projected $9M (i trust the rest your numbers, $9M seems reasonable enough)?
- Ellis' most optmistic (for the GSW perspective) pricetag would probably be $6.5M, roughly Barbosa money. That's assuming he repeats last year rough production levels.
- Pietrus is gone regardless. He doesn't want to stay, and I don't particularly like him, so good riddance we'll take the $3.5M savings thank you very much.
- Barnes. I don't think he'll get enough burn to earn a paycheck that is much more PER YEAR. He isn't a prospect anymore, and let's face it, he's best playing in our style. I would guess he is a shade under the MLE at $4M average. By way of comparison, Rasual Butler makes $3.5M average and they are similar players IMO. 6'7, low FG% but good 3P%, get by on hustle and doing the dirty work.
- Azubuike, I have faith in. By way of comparison, DeShawn Stevenson is a less effective player (spot up 3P shooter that plays decent perimeter D and not much else) and he got 4 years, $15M (avg just under $4M). Stevenson is 26, Azubuike is 24. I therefore do not believe that $5 .5-$6M is an unreasonable pricetag for a starter-quality SG. He will most certainly opt out unless he is even more generous than Adonal Foyle.
My personal choice:
- Give Azubuike 3 years, $17M (4th year team option of $7.5M, which is Maggette/Artest money). It takes him to age 26, which is the prime of his career, at which point he can seek a new contract. I believe that's something he'd accept, and it's quite a raise from what he was getting. 3 years isn't too unreasonable a risk to take on a 23 yd, hardworking and highly talented SG. By then Baron will be gone (probably?) and we have money to play with. That eats up about $5m in starting salary and leaves us $4M to play with under The Tax.
- Barnes walks, Pietrus walks. Hate Pietrus, self explanatory. Like Barnes, but we're just too close to the tax. Best of luck elsewhere, you deserve it.
- Spin Ellis for the Seattle picks (08 and 10 unprotected).
- Two first rounders = $4M: draft BPA point guard and BPA SF. Before you scoff, these guys went between picks 20 and 30 in 2006's "crap" draft class: Rajon Rondo, Marcus Williams, Sergio Rodriguez, Kyle Lowry, Jordan Farmar. I would take any of those over Troy Hudson.
Questions? Complaints?
(AIM: JetForze; email: Jon.d.ma@gmail.com)
by OptionZero on Oct 22, 2007 5:30 PM PDT up reply actions
MLE and Early Bird
This is what I had read:
(From Larry Coon's faq)
There are several situations where a team still might be unable to match an offer sheet:
[my enumerations replace Larry's bullet points]
1 If the player is a Non-Bird free agent and the team already used their Mid-Level exception to sign another player.
2 If the player is a Non-Bird or Early Bird free agent with three years in the league (this rule applies only to players with one or two years in the league).
3 If a team has two Non-Bird free agents with one or two years in the league. They can use the Mid-Level exception to keep one of them, but would lose the other.
It's not clear to me from this text. #2 doesn't apply since Azubuike wouldn't have 3 years of service. #3 wouldn't seem to apply either (unless some unknown walk on steps up, but for now we can ignore this. But #1 is what makes me think that it might require the MLE. The point mentions having burned the MLE specifically as a way to lose a non-Bird free agent with Arenas provision in place. I am working with the assumption that he didn't mean Bird or Early-Bird because he mentions both below. From my reading of #1, it sounds like there would be reason to use the MLE on a guy without Bird rights, but perhaps with "early-Bird" rights supersede this.
getting around it
The other point:
- If Azubuike gets $5M starting and we only have $9M available....and a draft pick will also be around $1.5-2M...we woudln't even be able to use the MLE anyways without hitting the luxury tax, which cohan will not do i'm virtually certain
- I'm fairly certain it will come down to keeping ONE of Ellis (at minimum $6.5M), Azubuike ($5-6M), Barnes (at $4M-5) or Pietrus (at $4-5M)...i would pick Azubuike without blinking.
Barnes and Pietrus are very replaceable and they are bench quality anyways.
Ellis would be the most expensive and on the flip side has the most trade value (he comes with bird rights, IIRC).
so to sum up:
You trade Ellis because you have Azubuike.
Questions? Complaints?
(AIM: JetForze; email: Jon.d.ma@gmail.com)
by OptionZero on Oct 22, 2007 7:55 PM PDT up reply actions
Hmm...
Anyway there are still a lot of things I'd like to see before I take a hard stance on this (haha, like it matters what my stance is) but thanks for the reply.
.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
