Peripheral Stats From Kawakami

by onlxn on Nov 30, 2008 11:50 AM PST Comment 19 comments

Kawakami: Stephen Jackson is the Warriors’ best player, but his peripheral stats stink

I think Kawakami can be kind of a goofball sometimes, but this is worth reading. It basically underlines a lot of the issues many of us have been complaining about.

- Jack's plus-minus stats are terrible. We shoot better and opponents shoot worse when he's *off* the floor. Some of that is due to the fact the Jack's not on the floor for garbage time; nevertheless, it's worth noting that we consistently win in garbage time, because we play a regular-sized lineup. Kawakami still seems to think that Jack's our best player, even better than Monta, which takes some real mental gymnastics. Jack has been hurting us.

- Maggette's defensive numbers are as bad as you'd think: teams shoot significantly better against us when he's on the floor. Nevertheless, his plus-minus stats are much better than Jack's, because Maggette has been fairly efficient on offense, even with his cold shooting.

- Crawford is scary bad so far on defense, FAR worse than Maggette (which accords with my sense of this past week's games). We give up points at a 135-per-game pace when Crawford plays. Kawakami: "It’s a tiny sample size, but Jamal Crawford might be the worst defensive player the Warriors have ever had, which is saying something." Oy.

- Azubuike's plus-minus is surprisingly bad. I suspect that's partly due to the fact that Azubuike is usually featured in the smallest lineups we use. Still, troubling.

- We are dramatically better when Wright is on the floor (both offensively and defensively), when Watson is on the floor, and when Turiaf is on the floor. None of this should be a surprise to anyone who's been watching the games.

The takeaways: Nellie is every bit the fool we think is for keeping Wright and Turiaf on the pine. What Jack is doing is really, really not working. Crawford may be an even worse acquisition than some of us feared. And C.J. Watson is turning into a quality backup, making the Crawford trade completely pointless.

Adjustments could address almost all of these problems: you clamp down on Jack, make Wright a starter, give Turiaf 25 minutes a night, make Crawford a sixth man (if not seventh), and we'll play better. Will Nellie make any of those adjustments? I'm not holding my breath.

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!

4 recs | Comment 19 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Watson,

has been great as our backup point guard and will do really well when Ellis is back. Anybody who has watched a game this year knows what type of positive impact Wright and Turiaf.

If only Nellie would stop running Maggette, Jackson and co to the dirt and playing the other players more, but as you said, I am not holding my breath….

Ellis to the rim.

by warriorsscore110 on Nov 30, 2008 12:03 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

clamping down on jackson

is the biggest key, i think. don’t get me wrong, the guy can play ball. and when he gets hot, heavens look out. but put a damn leach on him, nellie. don’t let him “shoot himself into a rhythm”!! that’s about as abstract a notion as benching a guy when he’s cold to give him a fresh start when he gets put back in. and with a guy with such a “short term memory” as jack, what difference does it make? take him off when he’s hurting us, limit the bleeding, then bring him back in in 4-5 minutes. he’ll be rested, and ready to go.

i really think that will help this team limit the in-game slumping and stop a lot of those periods where we take ourselves so far of the game that no one can bring us back.

by Run Dubz on Nov 30, 2008 12:12 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Brandan Wright>Stephen Jackson.

by DuikeBuike on Nov 30, 2008 12:37 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

When is Hendrix gonna return, if he actually can?

by AlbinoWhale on Nov 30, 2008 12:42 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

hendrix

he had one good game in the d leage and you think he’s ganna bring us up morrow had 2 good game in the nba and he’s been cold ever since s0o what makes you think hendrix is going to help us s0o fast?

by Fi7ipin0ch3f on Nov 30, 2008 10:55 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

while

I don’t completely buy the Crawford claims… yet… I completely agree with the Wright and Turiaf claims.

by Agent Zero on Nov 30, 2008 12:53 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Wow.... 4 games and you throw Crawford under the bus?

You lost all credibility!

by smearthebeard on Nov 30, 2008 1:25 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Not sure if you’re referring to me, but if you are, I threw Crawford under the bus after zero games. That was a dumb trade. His rep for horrible D very much preceded him, he adds nothing to this team that we didn’t already have, and his contract is bad. He seems like a likeable guy and I hope he helps us, but I’m not going to pretend to like the move that brought him here. It was a dumb trade.

by onlxn on Nov 30, 2008 1:36 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs

and if were "tanking" the season

why would we take on a bigger contract? I dont get this trade at all unless theres some master plan that they think Crawfish and Monta will make a hell of a back court or there some other master plan in the works…

Wait, I forgot this was the Warriors for a sec. Never mind.

by qin on Nov 30, 2008 4:29 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Jamal Crawford

Screw the defense, he makes Baron Davis’ shot selection look good. That for me is enough to throw him under the bus. A guy who’s had terrible shot selection in his career won’t magically have good shot selection all of a sudden — end JAE quote.

But I’ll be happy if he can magically prove me wrong.

by lightz0ut on Nov 30, 2008 1:57 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

We could learn alot from the Knicks...

the team that just handed us our ass and beating us at our own supposed game.

They’re starting to turn it around over there in NY and it all started when they stopped playing Marbury and Eddy Curry, regardless of how much money they’re making.

Quite simply, the Warriors need to be playing the players who hustle and play well for us. It doesn’t matter who we just traded for, who we’re paying the most, who we picked as team captain, because the way we’re doing things right now is just not working. We’re not beating bad teams and we’re not beating good teams either. We’re not even coming close to being a competitive NBA team. The decent teams that we’ve snuck a lead against aren’t even trying, you can tell. The Celtics and Cavs just flipped the switch to ‘on’ against us and never looked back.

We definitely have the talent on the team, Nelly just needs to do a better job of allocating the minutes around. There’s no reason why we need three 20ppg ball hogs on the floor at all times. There’s no reason why we should be playing someone 6’6" at PF when we have Wright, Randolph, and Turiaf as viable and contributing options.

by YaHeard on Nov 30, 2008 1:39 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

it wouldn't really matter

which guys we decided to play

by Agent Zero on Nov 30, 2008 6:24 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

As bad as Crawford is on defense

Watson is worse. he cant defend the screen and roll to save his life.

by pbra17 on Nov 30, 2008 4:20 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

and as bad as Baron's played with the Clippers thus far

when Baron is on the floor -5.8
when Baron is off the floor -16.8

the Clippers are +11 when Baron is on the floor.

btw, i don’t know when TK looked at it but the W’s are worse offensively w/ Wright (105 pts to 107 per 100 possessions; though maybe his accounts for pace… which may be faster when Wright is on the floor) and much worse on the glass. they get 44.2% of the rebounds with Wright on the floor vs 50.7 w/. it’s basically on defense (61.1% with vs 67.9% without). still, he’s +2.3 on +/-.

disregarding Rob Kurz, who is +15.8, but has only played in 4% of the minutes the W’s have played (or anyone else under 10), Morrow +11.3 (27 of the minutes), CJ +9.5 (53), Randolph +5.6 (18) of & Turiaf +5.4 (32%). Morrow’s # as of now is likely affected by an outlier b/c most of his minutes came in those 2 games.

still, you probably can’t play Randolph & Turiaf together and expect to see the positive trend continue. i don’t know about Wright with AB, but one of those two paired with one of the Turiaf/Randolph combo should always be on the floor.

i wouldn’t play Crawford w/ Maggette. you can only afford to have one zero defender on the floor at a time. i don’t know about the KAz situation… oddly, he’s always been a huge negative player (+/- wise) ever since he joined the team.

by the evil monkey on Nov 30, 2008 4:20 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

obviously, as with all things statistical, +/- isn't without it's faults, but i think it still confirms the things we are seeing

and that’s that we need more Rob Kurz!

by the evil monkey on Nov 30, 2008 4:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

yes

i agree with everything you said… and the thing with KAZ… there is a simple solution… he is an undrafted, “underdog” type of player and has a negative +/- for a reason… don’t play him as much

by Agent Zero on Nov 30, 2008 6:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

or it's because

he is playing the 3 usually when he is in

"If you hit .440 with 20 bombs, you don't have to do s---. You don't have to bring a glove to practice, just hit and leave whenever you want. You can bring a 40 and smoke a cigarette and call me from the parking lot asking me what time the game is, and I'll tell you. You can even say 'F--- you, Steve!' Actually, don't say that, that wouldn't be very nice." -Steve Friend, Head Coach, Chabot College Gladiators Baseball

by flipgatey3 on Nov 30, 2008 8:40 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs