Hollinger's View Of Warriors Off-Season

by BeLEGENDelliAllDay on Jul 20, 2007 12:54 PM PDT Comment 44 comments

Don't know if any of ya'll care, but John Hollinger of ESPN ranked us second to last (in front of Seattle) in the quality of our off-season.

Link: http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/insider/columns/story?columnist=hollinger_john&page=offseasondecl iners

29. Golden State Warriors
(added Brandan Wright and Marco Belinelli; lost Jason Richardson)

The Warriors can salvage their offseason if they can pull off a deal for Kevin Garnett or leverage their assets to get a similar wattage star.

But at the moment it seems they'll have an awful lot of trouble replicating the magical ending to last season. Richardson was hurt much of the season but his return was one of the biggest keys to Golden State's awesome stretch run. Now the Warriors are without him and might lose two other key wings in unsigned free agents Mickael Pietrus and Matt Barnes.

Folks are talking up Belinelli as a quality replacement for Richardson after his scorching hot summer league effort. However, his European numbers say he's not all that, and I trust those results a lot more than five pick-up games against the league's B-listers. Maybe Belinelli will be the exception who blows away his translated European stats, but I wouldn't bet on it. As for Wright, I like him as a prospect but his time is likely a couple years down the road, as his body fills out and he better learns how to tap his undeniable potential."

Though I don't always put a ton of stock in hollinger, he does make some decent arguments.....What do ya'll think of this....do you think he's right, wrong?
peace, dan

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 | Comment 44 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I think holinger should shut up

and start crunching numbers. Richardsons scoring will be divided up no problem. Plus wright and belinelli are both good pickups that he is totally overlooking. He called Belinelli a dog not too long ago....

Also we are not done making moves...

THE HEART AND SOUL OF THE W'S

by dallaswarrior on Jul 20, 2007 1:02 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

he makes good points though

and he basically says that we aren't lookin all that great until we make some more moves.

by Proof on Jul 20, 2007 4:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

hello

theres a reason why hollinger works for espn and not you

by thewarriorsrule on Jul 20, 2007 6:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Good point I never thought of

that...... He works at ESPN!!!!!!!! He must be right...... You need to pick up a logic book and study under informal falacies. Any more insights you would like to offer?

My God John Hollinger is really smart I love him so much. He works at ESPN oh wow. He is a really good looking bald guy who likes to play with numbers, Wow numbers are cool. Right thewarriorsrule.

The fact of the matter is Hollinger isn't taking the future into considerion. He is underestimating the potential of our rookies and we are not done dealing yet, telling us in the middle of the summer that we have made bad moves is ridiculous. Also you have to remember that Nelsons system is easy to score in and the scoring we lost with JRich will balance out. The intangibles are all we have to worry about with JR leaving but time will allow our team to have an identity without hiim.

THE HEART AND SOUL OF THE W'S

by dallaswarrior on Jul 21, 2007 9:58 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

PS I understand his article is about

this year... but again we arent done dealing yet

THE HEART AND SOUL OF THE W'S

by dallaswarrior on Jul 21, 2007 9:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

hollinger's opinion

holds no weight at all. he has diarrhea of the mouth and isn't well informed in most instances.

the crowning achievement of ira newble's illustrious career

by JudBooshlur on Jul 20, 2007 1:11 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

he needs to get fired

I've never read anything worth listening to of his. hes useless

Listen to the wise, be patient.

by raypress23 on Jul 20, 2007 1:14 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Dude

his analysis is pretty close, I don't know if we're 29 but we're no better then 22 or 23. We DIDN'T get better by trading J Rich, we lost scoring AND rebounding. J Rich was one of the top rebounding gurads in the league. Look at Belli's stats and you'll see he didn't rebound much. Also Wright is unproven, there's no gurantee he's going to be a stud or a mini KG like people have suggest.

We also have the potential of losing Barnes and Pietrus, which Barnes would be the bigger blow since he was a main piece of our team. We haven't done a single thing in free agency so his comments are pretty much correct. I don't like Hollinger at all and I think he talks a lot of BS but for once, he's actually pretty accurate in what he said about the Dubs.

by J Rich 4 MVP on Jul 20, 2007 1:18 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

i dont know anymore

i havent felt less excited for a season to come then ever.

i got an elevator in my house...... thats f'ing ridiculous

by stevenro59 on Jul 20, 2007 1:25 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Hollinger being Hollinger

First of all, the offseason's nowhere near finished, so I don't get the timing. Doesn't he have anything better to do than spew another ridiculous "ranking" -- like, say, explain the patented translation system whereby he has determined that Beli's likely to suck?

Even a partial grade ... 29 out of 30? For adding Wright, Belinelli, Lasme, Buki, and Perovic at about $4M per year total, as well as a sweet $10M trade exception, while losing an above-average shooting guard making 4/$50M? All the while positioning ourselves the frontrunners (after Minnesota) in the KG sweepstakes?

Whether we land Garnett or not, we've already had a much better offseason than most of the teams in the NBA. Just out of curiosity, where does the Great Hollinger put Orlando, whose main offseason accomlishments have been (1) losing Darko for and Grant Hill for nothing; and (2) signing an above-average no-D small forward to one of the worst contracts in the NBA?

by Sleepy Freud on Jul 20, 2007 1:37 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

16

16. Orlando Magic
(added Rashard Lewis; lost Grant Hill, Darko Milicic and Travis Diener; replaced Brian Hill with Stan Van Gundy)

They overpaid for Lewis, but picking him up undoubtedly will pay some short-term dividends. Fair enough. But is Lewis enough to offset the losses of Hill and Milicic? I dunno. Darko's departure leaves the cupboard looking awfully bare in the frontcourt, and I don't think signing 6 foot, 11-inch Polish import Marcin Gortat (rumored to be imminent) changes that picture much.

One other thing to look at is how the Lewis signing has an impact on Hedo Turkoglu. Both Lewis and Turkoglu are 6-10, defensively limited and like to shoot jumpers from the corner. It's not clear to me how both can be on the court at the same time, at least for long stretches, and I'd like the Magic's offseason a lot better if they could trade Turkoglu for a decent big man.

However, one positive is the addition of Stan Van Gundy. He was one of the best, if not the best, coaches available on the market, and his track record suggests he might improve the Magic's defense quite a bit.

All in all, there are a lot of additions and subtractions to weigh here, but the end result is that it looks pretty close to a wash.

Link: http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/insider/columns/story?columnist=hollinger_john&page=offseasondecl iners

by Psion on Jul 20, 2007 3:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

link messed up

Link: http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/insider/columns/story?columnist=hollinger_john&page=offseasondecl iners

by Psion on Jul 20, 2007 3:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Great points Sleepy...

I mean he doesn't even bring up the cap money we saved by dealing J-Rich. How can you not factor that in to the equation. Overall I think his critique is shortsighted and doesn't even pretend to take into account all the variables.

Lame...

by Joe Frank on Jul 20, 2007 1:47 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

tactics vs strategy

Money under the lux tax doesn't win games. Using limited salary space wisely does, but this is usually part of a longer term strategy to acquire good players and/or keep players who turn out to be good.

For next year, as things stand, we've traded a top producer, one whose scoring will be replaced but his rebounds may not, for an unknown and some more flexibility. I doubt Wright will add wins on his own this year, and I say that as a UNC alum who thinks highly of Wright. If the flexibility isn't used, it won't add up to a single win either.

Strategically, we may have had a good off-season, selling a good player at what's probably peak value to get into a draft that's much deeper than any in recent memory, getting a guy with world's of potential while saving money that is needed to be able to get new pieces and keep the ones we want. Short term though the tactics involved might lose us more games next year. Notice that in Milwaukee and in his previous go in Oakland, Nellie took teams over .500 only to slip below the next year. It's possible this could happen again.

by jae on Jul 20, 2007 3:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Incomplete quote

Sleepy, Joe: It wasn't actually a ranking of "best-to-worst offseason"; it was a ranking of which team has improved themselves specifically for next season. In his opening:

...what I want to do today is focus on how those maneuvers affect each team for this coming season in particular.

I dunno about 29th, but we certainly--up to this point--have hurt our team for next season. It's true, though: there's a lot of offseason remaining.

by ffgolden on Jul 20, 2007 2:07 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Take Hollinger in context

I think we all need to take a second and consider exactly why Hollinger's trying to do:

He is evaluting how each team has improved or not purely for this upcoming season. In such a case "potential" doesn't count for much, nor does financial benefit. Both of those would matter in a long-term view.

Belinelli is a foreign prospect, and not quite a highly touted one like a Scola or Ming. Wright, even we admit, is extremely raw. To say that they will definitely, or even "probably" outproduce Richardson, Barnes, and Pietrus (all 3, remember) has to be extremely optimistic. We have no samples for their NBA production, and in Azubuike's case, we have a very limited sample size to look at.

I have no problem with Hollinger saying we haven't definitively improved for "this" season. Even he would agree we're better off long-term. I like the moves Mullin has made, but I'm not so obsessed that I need people to say we're gonna be good now we're gonna be good now ...we're gonna be good now.

We've done good things; experts have praised us. There's nothing wrong with him taking his current view as long as people know exactly what it is that he's saying. I'm happy to prove him wrong, and that's part of the fun of it, but I'm not offended by his article.

by OptionZero on Jul 20, 2007 2:14 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

werd?

Defending Hollinger is much too daunting of a task for you to take on, dude. The guy's a grade A dumbass. I applaud your courage, though.

http://westcoastbiased.blogspot.com

by coma on Jul 20, 2007 3:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

hahaha mmmmm...

THE HEART AND SOUL OF THE W'S

by dallaswarrior on Jul 20, 2007 3:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not at all

I don't think it's daunting task at all; if anything's hard, it's to be objective.

He has different style of analysis and usually presents it pretty coherently. You don't have to believe him or agree; just take it at face value as another writer doing his thing.

I'd rather read him than listen to a guy like Steven A. Smith yell at me all day about stuff that makes no sense.

I'm a Warriors fan- if I couldn't handle someone saying my team wasn't good, I would have shot myself a decade ago.

Instead of getting mad at Hollinger, read him again, try to understand what he's trying to say, and form your own opinions. It's just another piece to the puzzle of understanding basketball better, only you can decide whether to use his piece as one of your own awareness or not.

by OptionZero on Jul 20, 2007 3:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

well said

well said option zero. there is a reason why u r a moderator in this group and not coma. i believe coma is the grade A dumb@$$. sorry coma, u just need to have an open mind about things.

by thewarriorsrule on Jul 20, 2007 5:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

personal attacks

Will not be tolerated, no matter who they are directed against.

No need to take a shot at someone, you could have said what you wanted to say without throwing that crap around.

by OptionZero on Jul 20, 2007 6:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

And personal attacks

Against long-time posters wrapped around slobbery suck-ups to the new moderator are especially loser-ish ;-P

On the column: one thing you can say for Hollinger, he does tend to provoke good, spirited debates on this site. On the whole, I think he's a pretty good addition to overall hoops discourse. He's got about 25% of the insight and inspiration of, say, Bill James, but he does try to be objective; and unlike Chad Ford or Ray Ratto, he doesn't seem to derive any particular pleasure from the Warriors' suffering.

As I said, my main issue with his rankings is the timing of them, before the 30-day trade period for signed draft picks has even elapsed. He adds the caveat about our spinning our added value into KG (or equiv.), but why not just wait till all the various shoes have dropped?

I think most people here would agree that if we stand pat right now, we've taken a slight, temporary step back -- possibly for a year, possibly a bit more, possibly a bit less. Since we weren't going to contend for a championship by sticking with last year's group, I don't have a problem with this. Basically, I'm still wait-and-see, which is really how all of us here should be. I just think it's a little misleading and unfair of Hollinger to jump the gun.

by Sleepy Freud on Jul 21, 2007 9:22 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Deadlines

He could be facing some sort of schedule imposed by ESPN higherups,...or may he just had nothing else do do.

I dunno.

by OptionZero on Jul 21, 2007 11:07 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

side note: formatting

if possible, try to take the extra spaces/returns out of the webpin, to conserve space.

by OaktownWarrior on Jul 22, 2007 10:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

The Pieces

Hollinger doesn't see the full picture. The W's have been without a quality power forward for a long time. Wright could fill the bill.

Second he ignores Nellie's system. Belinelli could be an above averige is the W's run and gun offense.

Jim

by jarforcefathwerofforce on Jul 20, 2007 3:55 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

The Pieces

First of all, who really sees the whole picture? Are you saying you see everything, or more than him? He's never claimed to see the whole picture; Hollinger even admits explicitly this is a limited view on what each team has done so far and only for this year.

Second, read what you posted again. Wright "could" be...Belinelli "could" be. With an international prospect and a freshman prospect (who's regarded as even more raw than Durant or Oden), you can't legitimately predict with any certainty they'll produce immediately, much less enough to replace the losses of J-Rich, Barnes, and Pietrus.

Third, we may have been without a good PF for a long time, but Harrington was pretty productive last year. It's hard to see Wright being better right away. In a year, sure, I buy it and think it's more than likely. Now? He's gonna battle conditioning problems and foul trouble early on, like Biedrins did.

Again, we might make another move (minor or major), but we haven't yet.

by OptionZero on Jul 20, 2007 4:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Harrington? Productive? By what measure?

I'm going to disagree about Harrington. As PFs go, he wasn't even average for production. The average PF scored 1.26 points per shot. Harrington clocked in at 1.19pps. The average PF shot free throws better than him and, in equal PT, drew more fouls than he did. While he's an above average 3 point shooter, his lack of efficiency on 2's, his poorer ability to both take and make FTs more than canceled this out.

His assists, steals and fouls were spot on average for a 4, his rebounds were below average, as were his blocks.

He was above average in FG attempts, but since he wasn't terribly efficient, we'd have been better off if someone else was taking some of those shots anyhow.

One other place he was above average? Turnovers.

He may have been better than what we were working with before, but he wasn't that productive. Much of his scoring was a result of taking a bunch of shots. That sort of inefficiency would predict that the Warriors would, on average be better with him on the bench than on the court. That's exactly what the +/- stats say too.

I know he became the starter during the playoff push. However, his total minutes diminished during this period. He was playing less when the team was winning more.

It may be that Wright won't be more productive as a rookie, but I don't think it's fair to claim that Harrington was particularly productive.

by jae on Jul 20, 2007 4:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

It's a question of fit

I certainly was disappointed by Harrington's production overall, but I can't imagine how many other PF's would "fit" in our system.

I think the way we play defense makes it hard to capture with stats how truly useful or not a player is. Murphy, for example, was just atrocious because he didn't block shots, didn't particularly defend the post well, and was useless in rotation- it'd be hard to track that with numbers, and I'm a guy that has no qualms with stats.

I'm looking at some numbers on 82 games.com

If i'm reading this correctly (and i'm not that good with +/- measures), then we scored a little more on offense and gave up a little less on defense when he was on the floor- so he was a positive influence on our performance.

Just as an example, the same numbers for Troy Murphy show how bad a PF/C he was. We gave up 3 fewer points per 100 possessions when he was off the court on defense, and scored 3 more points when he was off the court on offense.

Harrington could do alot more, yeah, I agree. His shot selection needs work, he should take advantage of his post skills more often, he needs to make some freakin' FT's.

Bear in mind also he had to adjust to Nelson's style of playing and had to really work on his conditioning. I do recall an article saying the pace was taking its toll on Harrington, who was going from the slow-as-molasses Pacers to light-speed with us.

So I'm gonna cut Harrington a little slack here. I struggle to think of how many guys have a skillset that would enable them to flourish more here without getting into the most elite class of players (the kirilenko's, the marion's, etc).

by OptionZero on Jul 20, 2007 5:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I forgot about Wright

The other end of it, as it relates to this discussion, is what you think Brandan Wright will do. Will he in his first year match Harrington's production?

I think, again, that foul trouble (like all rookie bigs) and stamina are gonna limit Wright's immediate effectiveness, at least compared to Harrington.

by OptionZero on Jul 20, 2007 5:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Wright and fouls

Foul trouble is a possibility, but that's actually one of Wright's strengths. He had more blocks than fouls last season while taking on the toughest opposition big last year. Rookies tend to foul but if there's a rookie who won't have that problem (and it is an if) Wright's the guy. He rarely if ever got into foul trouble at UNC. He didn't pick up any DQs and only had 4 fouls in 4 games.

He doesn't hack and he has incredible control of his body. I think his problems will come if he all of a sudden thinks he's a scorer and if he cannot use his phenomenal quickness to grab rebounds. The former I suspect is more likely than the latter.

I don't think much of Harrington clearly. Since the Warriors had a better +/- without him in the game, I can't see how he was really much of a 'fit' at all, but your mileage may vary. Wright has the potential to be a better fit. He's incredibly fast and can be a finisher on the break. Harrington seemed to miss too many layups. Inside 10 feet Brandan does not miss.

by jae on Jul 20, 2007 7:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

plus/minus

Ok I'm confused...am I reading this wrong?

It says that Harrington is +1.6 NET

http://www.82games.com/0607/0607GSW.HTM

Doesn't that mean they're better with him on the court than without?

by OptionZero on Jul 20, 2007 7:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Thanks

I stand corrected. They must have made a big late season surge with him because for quite some time, they were far behind with him in games.

by jae on Jul 20, 2007 11:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yes

I purposely used the word "could" because I was refering to rookies. Assume we made no moves and didn't trade JRich. The W's showed that they cannot win in the playoffs against a big team. With Wright they become more competitive against the Utahs etc. I agree with you that Wright will not produce immediately and the W's wins will not greatly improve this coming season but the trade makes sense.

Jim

by jarforcefathwerofforce on Jul 21, 2007 4:04 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

dude

dude u guys are way in over your heads. you guys have a really hard time accepting reality and the truth about this team. yes, it's hard b/c we are all die-hard loyal warrior fans, and we tend to exaggerate our assets. but everything hollinger says is correct. we lost jrich. we traded a 23+ scorer for an unproven talent with "vast potential". if tim kawakami is right, mullin made a huge mistake. we were supposed to trade jrich in order to get kg. there was no way we coulda traded a 23+ scorer for an unproven talent. mullin f*cked up, but we just don't know about it yet. we are not gonna get kg folks. it is just a nice dream. accept the reality. i'm sorry, and i wish kg would come here.

main point is we lost jrich and added wright. that is not gonna get us to the playoffs this year.

but that doesn't stop me from rooting for the warriors.

hollinger is correct. u guys need to take it easy. stop reading nintendo power

by thewarriorsrule on Jul 20, 2007 5:54 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

"if tim kawakami is right"

well i guess it is a good thing that is not usually the case.
but i would agree with Hollinger for the most part, so far we havent improved from last year but i dont think Mullin/Nellie are done yet

by azw on Jul 21, 2007 12:39 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

"u guys"?

Who are you referring to, warriorsrule? Most fair-minded hoops analysts think the Warriors made pretty good moves with the JRich-for-Wright deal and the drafting of Belinelli (which you conveniently ignore) but are waiting for the other shoes to drop (or not) before pronouncing a strong view one way or the other.

You rattling on about your maturity and ability to "accept reality" is really no less silly than anything the fan-boys have been saying.

by Sleepy Freud on Jul 21, 2007 9:33 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

"we just don't know about it yet"

you have a good point that GSoM faithful overvalue our guys

my faith rests in watching Nelson - had Mullin F'd up I think we'd know since Nelson rather than Mullin has been the one making decisions for a year now. If the chess moves went awry, Nelson would have re-retired to Maui leaving Mullin to tidy up his own mess. (Did anyone notice there has been zero said about Nelson's contract lately?)

No, silence is golden is my new motto (right after it aint over till the fat lady sings) because as potential KG suitors fall away Minn is left with our offer or nothing, only strengthening our hand. And even McHale can't honestly think that letting KG go for nothing at the end of the season is better than dealing him.

you're right, we don't know - yet

by hardcore on Jul 21, 2007 11:32 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

lets not exaggerate the rookies

you guys seem to exaggerate bellinelli, wright, lasme, kosta, but we can't expect these guys to make a significant contribution right away. these guys are rookies with 0 nba minutes. i don't care if bellinelli played 5 years professionally in italy. it is still 0 nba minutes. i don't care if he did good in summer league. it is a nice sign, BUT did u also know that dunleavy avg'd 26 ppg in summer league and had vast potential? do u want to look at stats? bellinelli shot 37% 3's in italy. and when he played against "stiffer competition in europe". that number went down to 32%. what do u think that number will be in the US against hardcore nba players? i say 27%.

u can't expect these guys to make a significant contribution right away. you need to look at: we lost a 23+ scorer for something that is not there yet.

by thewarriorsrule on Jul 20, 2007 6:03 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Let's not exagerrate

JRich's "23+ points per game." First of all, PPG only a fraction of the picture when you're measuring a player's on-court productivity. Secondly, JRich averaged 16 ppg last year (partly because of injury, obviously) and 18.3 for his career. 23.2 is his career high, on a very different team from the current one.

It's not really fair to be simplistic while attacking others for being simplistic.

And I'll gladly take the "over" on your predicted 27% 3 pt for Belinelli. What are we betting? ;-)

by Sleepy Freud on Jul 21, 2007 9:43 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yea Hollinger's analysis isn't complete BS

If we take the roster, as it stands right now, into next season, we won't do anything near what we did last year.

by jlagace on Jul 20, 2007 6:31 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

If you believe this link

http://www.sportprojections.com/nba_projections.html

You are correct. However, these 2007 - 2008 NBA final projections for the Warriors will change as the summer progresses and the season pushes into February.

by streetballer on Jul 20, 2007 8:04 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Remember where the Warriors where last year...

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/07/10/SPGLHJSHUD1.DTL

Mullie takes his time. The trade for Al and Jax was pending...waiting for Nellie to see if...stick a fork in him Dunleavy and Murphy would fit Nellieball...NOT

by streetballer on Jul 20, 2007 8:35 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Hollinger is

good writer after
-not before

-he never BELIEVE (you can laugh but this is important) he just reproduce hez statistics -maybe in this aspect Dubs look worth then in real

the most important thing is confidence not rating -and if somethin Nellie can give that is confidence
-Nellie is team builder

-as all time most upsetting team Warriors have to prove another time that Hollinger is wrong

and Dubs can do this -i m sure

dogs are barking -Warriors keep move up

by Lat We N Trash on Jul 21, 2007 7:12 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Hollinger

predicted Biedrins would be a star based on those European translations, which worries me about Bellinelli. Hollinger doesn't often say things a lot of us like, but he's great with numbers.

by jonathan on Jul 23, 2007 2:37 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs