Golden State Of Mind: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:



Around SBN: Phillies Coast Past Brewers, Face L.A. In NLCS Bar-right-arrows



The West is about to get much weaker, let's take advantage.

Think about it, of the eight teams that finished above us at least four of them will probably be worse next year.  Denver has to have the highest likelihood of any one team having a one team Artest-brawl at their practice facility of any team in NBA history (or if no one goes to those, any random home game).  Have you seen a Nuggets game?  They don't speak to each other under any circumstances, it's creepy.  The odds of them staying cohesive enough to compete are slim. 

The Mavs are trotting out Jason Kidd's lifeless body (as much as it hurts me to say that about the guy) at the point every night, Erick Dampier at center and Dirk who hasn't had any heart since the Dubs ripped it from his chest in '07.  No playoffs are a possibility for them too. 

The Suns are counting on Steve Nash's back,  Grant Hill's general health and Shaq not collapsing on the court after every time he jumps.  Doesn't sound like a team that is winning as many games as they did last year to me. 

The Rockets need Yao to stay healthy and T-Mac to pull it together and have plenty of question marks themselves. 

Almost every supporting guy on the Spurs is the winning combination of old, unathletic and a potential free agent.  I think they'll reload properly, but maybe not fast enough for next year. 

The Hornets and Jazz should be about as good as they were this year, accounting for CP3 and Deron getting a little better, but having some aging pieces around them.  

The Lakers are the only really terrifying team for next year, if Bynum is healthy.  That team could win 70 next year, thanks to the grand theft Gasol trade and Farmar improving a little.

Right now, that leaves us as a 6-8 seed in my estimation, accounting for Portland probably getting into the mix as well.  If we add another all-star caliber or at least close to it talent, we shoot up to the 4-6 if everything plays out right.  That's why I am so concerned when Nellie says that he wants to spend a lot of time developing young guys at the expense of a few wins.  I don't think he will, when has he ever, but that is a sign that management isn't going to make much of a splash in the off-season.  Let's make a trade that makes us more than just a scary first round matchup.  A lot of good names are being floated right now and I want to see something done.  I've been hearing Marion is available along with Sheed and all those restricted free agents who could be brought in with the right sign and trade.  There is no reason for us not to go all in this year instead of developing young guys to be good when the traditional powerhouse teams get ready to win again. 

Please Mullin, get someone this year, we need it.

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 167 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

asdf

Yeah, Dirk had no heart when he came back early from a high ankle sprain and played hurt to save his team’s season and get them in the playoffs. I don’t buy the Dirk criticism. Kidd is still effective, but is a terrible fit on the Mavs. They rely on isos (or did, we will have to see what Carlisle brings) and need shooters around Dirk. I do see them slipping a bit tho. I just hate the Dirk the criticism, he is legitimately a top 5-7 player in the NBA and absolutely championship caliber. He would have a ring if Wade didn’t go to the line 24 times a game in the finals.

It will be VERY interesting to see what happens to the Suns. Is Shaq going to listen to a word Porter says? How will Nash be without D’antoni? How much better will Amare get?

The Rockets are dangerous. Yes, they have had injuries and that is always looming over them, but we have seen their potential. If they could put it together at just the right time (ala the 2006 Miami Heat) they are absolutely a threat to win it all. Especially if Rafer’s rise is for real (alliteration not intended).

Hornets, Jazz, Lakers, Spurs are all threats to take the west.

Blazers will add Rudy Fernandez and Greg Oden to an already impressive collection of young talent.

Denver won 50 games despite bad chemistry, and are tough to deal with in a shootout. I am not writing them off just yet.

I didn’t even mention Durant, Al Jefferson, Brand. The west has stars on the non playoff teams too.

I dunno dude, the West is gonna be pretty FREAKING GOOD AGAIN.

by Nellieball on Jun 7, 2008 10:12 PM PDT   0 recs

Sacramento doesn’t look too bad either.

by belilaugh on Jun 7, 2008 11:26 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Also

I know they suck now but if a couple more of their picks pan out Memphis could be good in a couple years. Seattle’s got a bunch of picks, they are looking to be pretty good in a few years as well. The only team I see sucking for a while is Minnesota, so the West looks to be tough for a while. What we have to hope for is an earthquake moving everything to the left of the San Andreas fault, and us floating around until we relocate near Maine. Of course, that might take billions of years but at the same time that’s how long the West’s dominance figures to go on for.

by belilaugh on Jun 7, 2008 11:33 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I dunno

I think the Sonics are farther off than the T-Wolves. Durant and Green are nice, and they should have a ton of cap room once they move, but theres not a whole lot else there. For Minny Al Jefferson is a stud big man, Gomes, Smith, and McCants all look like solid role players, Corey Brewer could still be a very good SF, Telfair still has a ton of potential, and when Foye has been healthy he’s actually looked very good. Theres enough good young pieces there to think theyll be competitive in the next 3-4 years IMO. I agree with you about Memphis though, especially because it looks like they may have the best shot at trading up with the Heat for the #2 pick. Gay and Beasley at the forward spots makes for nightmare matchups with any team. I’m convinced Conley will be a good NBA PG. They are still a few pieces and 2-3 years away but they are moving the right direction. I think the west is getting tougher, not weaker. The only team I really see making a sharp decline in the next couple years in Phoenix and even they probably have one more good run in them.

by sam23 on Jun 8, 2008 12:16 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

well

I guess Denver and the Clippers are probably headed the wrong direction too. Though even the Clips could be scary next year if Maggette and Brand both stay and Livingston is able to return. Thats a scary frontcourt. Maggette-Brand-Kaman with Thornton off the bench is a scary good frontcourt.

by sam23 on Jun 8, 2008 12:20 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Beardsly

Sorry but there is no way the West gets worse. The Nuggets, and Dallas will be worse, but Portland will be better. Sacramento will be the Portland of last year or maybe even the Warriors.
Also Dirk deserves to be ripped on. How does the MVP play terribly in the first round of the playoffs against a team that actually decided to let Baron Davis guard him (Nothing against Davis, but thats a horrible mismatch). Not to mention the Finals. I would compare Dirk to A-rod, but isn’t as good in the regular season. Maybe he would be better in a different situation, but he can’t get the job done right now

by Beardsly on Jun 10, 2008 5:04 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Beardsly

Yea I don’t see the west getting worse any time in the next 10 years. Of course it will a little but no way the East catches up

by Beardsly on Jun 10, 2008 5:06 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Don't mind it

I don’t mind that nellie says that he wants to develop the young talent, I think that is the best approach. Realistically we will not compete for a championship in the next couple yrs. The Spurs are still very dangerous, there big three are so experienced and Papavich is such a good coach that they will always have a shot. When Duncan decides it he is the best PF in the league. I would hate to see us give up young talent for Sheed who is over 30 and does not have too many really effective yrs left. Marion would be great, but I am still not convinced that he is what we need, he still makes a living on the perimeter, with pretty limited inside scoring.

Disagree if you would like, but I think this team should trade Pietrus and Biedrins (if he asks for too much) for consistent bench support. Hire a big man coach, develop B Wright and get a big man with the #14 pick. This team is young and talented, work for the future, don’t be stupid and underestimate the West, it will still be really tough next yr

by mbuddtha on Jun 7, 2008 10:43 PM PDT   0 recs

The West will be just as strong next year.

I can see a drop off in production with Dallas and Denver. But Phoenix still has Amare in his prime, as well as Nash who still has a couple good years left in him. The Spurs’ window is closing, but they’re still a good team. Houston will always be a major injury risk. But when T-Mac and Yao are healthy, they are a top 4 team.

Then of course you have the Lakers, Hornets, and the Jazz as up and coming teams that could hold the reins of the West for years to come.

Portland is a team everyone will be watching. They’ll make the West tougher next year. You need to also acknowledge the Clippers as a sleeper team if Brand resigns and Livingston plays at least 75% of his old self. A Brand-Kaman-Thornton frontline can rival any team in the NBA.

So, here’s my depth chart for the West:

Lakers, Hornets, Spurs, Jazz, Phoenix, Houston, Dallas, (Warriors-Portland-Denver), Sacramento (could be a sleeper .500 team).

Looks like another tough year in the West.

Warriors, Stupidest franchise in the league.

by kenntoe on Jun 7, 2008 11:15 PM PDT   0 recs

Warriors and Blazers

will take the last two playoff spots over Dallas and Denver, as Nellie convinces Cohan to start spending some $$ to improve our bench.

by shootda3 on Jun 7, 2008 11:28 PM PDT   0 recs

dont be so quick

to discount Dallas. Everyone rags on Dirk for the playoff losses the last couple years, but he’s still a stud in the regular season and if their new system suits Kidd a little better they could be as good as anyone not named the Lakers next year.

by sam23 on Jun 8, 2008 12:18 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

West.

Will be stronger next year. How the hell do you count Dallas out?

Lakers
Spurs
Utah
Rockets
Nuggets
Dallas
Hornets
Suns
Blazers
Warriors

10 Playoff hopeful teams.

Add the wildcard in Clippers and thats at least 11 teams vying for 8 spots.

by ejdacanay on Jun 8, 2008 12:50 AM PDT   0 recs

Thank you Sir...

The West will not be weaker. They will be older, but not weaker.

1) Lakers
2) Hornets
3) Spurs
4) Jazz
5) Rockets
6) Mavericks
7) Suns

8)

Blazers, Warriors, Clippers vying for the last spot as ej said. Real wishful thinking to see us as 4-6 even if we add someone- there isn’t much we could do. We haven’t even hit free agency or the draft so how can you possibly say that over the course of a few months, with no significant additions that we’re a 6-8 seed? Right now? Right now we’re 9th and last time I checked that didn’t count for anything except the 14th pick.

Teams 1-7 are better than us. Are we capable of beating every single one of those teams? Yes. But we’re not better than they are. Until we get some much needed bench depth via a PG to spell Baron, a big who plays with his back to the basket to complement Beans, and a consistent scorer off the bench, we’re not going to sniff anything past the 8th seed and will be fortunate to make the playoffs.

The Blazers will be downright scary – BRoy, Outlaw, Aldridge, Oden- I’m thinking Joe Alexander would be a perfect fit with them.

The Clippers will have the Kaman Caveman back next year along with a healthier Elton Brand (if he doesn’t opt out) and with Corey Maggette (if he doesn’t opt out). If you pair those 3 with the # 7 pick- Bayless, Mayo, Gordon…......along with Al Thornton, the darkest man alive Tim Thomas, and Cat Mobley, they’ll be formidable match themselves and a real threat to squeak into the playoffs.

There’s a lot of things the Warriors could do. Only if we were all GM’s but the cold harsh reality is that we still have the same owner which means we’ll be relegated to resigning only a few FA’s- no one significant, some of our owns and one or two Vet minimum players and that’ll be that. I figure our younger players will come along this year but we’ll still be one of the teams on the outside looking in.

Until Baron and Foyle come off the books, and Harrington becomes a tradeable $10M commodity next year, we won’t have any financial flexibility in the meantime to make any big moves. Would we all like Cohen to hit the luxury tax and put the best possible product out there? Sure we would. Is it likely? Probably not.

I’d trade Al, Belly, and Kosta for Sheed if Detroit were stupid enough to do it. But not B-Wright. Worst thing that could happen is if Sheed doesn’t work out, we’ll let him and Baron walk off into FA and watch $30M come off the books.

Could you imagine signing Artest via FA coupled with Sheed and Cap’n Jack? That’d be so fun to watch I’d probably have to throw a futures bet down on how many technicals we’d rack up.

Sad to say, but right now we’re at best the 9th seed bro. Nellie did miracles with this team this year to win 48 games. We have so many holes and so many FA’s to sign and resign, I’m not sure Mully and the front office can do it. We’ve got to ink about 9-10 guys to contracts…It’d be interesting to see who we get and for how much.

Re-sign Tay and Biedrins. Give B-Wright more burn and build around the 3 of them. The future is bright if we build accordingly. We should be right there with Portland and Minnesota – and possibly Seattle/Oklahoma City/Las Vegas when all the older teams fall off in about 3 years.By then we’ll have the star-studded 2010 FA class to look forward to.

by phiLthyphiL on Jun 8, 2008 9:22 AM PDT   1 recs

+ !!!

One of the smartest, truest and best written analyses of the (Golden?) State of the Ws I’ve read on this site. I agree 100% and have nothing to add, other than props and ”+ !!!”

Sign ^^^^ !!!

by Sleepy Freud on Jun 8, 2008 3:20 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

mostly agree

I think Portland’s future might be slightly overrated though. Obviously they are on the rise and have a solid young core, I’m just not sure theyll ever be a contender for the title with that group. I’ve love Roy’s game since his Washington days and I dont think Oden will be a bust, but I still think they will lack that go to scorer, a 4th quarter closer. Roy might be the guy for them, but I see him more as a really good 2nd option rather than a go to guy. If I were in Portland’s shoes I’d be making a big push for Baron either this year via trade or next year as a free agent/sign and trade. A Baron/Roy backcourt would be awesome as would a frontcourt anchored by Aldrige and Oden. I cant really imagine a package I’d be willing to trade Baron for that didnt involve one of those 3 guys, but they do have a lot of very good young pieces to work with (Outlaw/Fernandez/Jack/Webster/Frye)

I totally agree with just about everything else you said though, so I guess its sorta nitpicking.

by sam23 on Jun 8, 2008 4:33 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Just a side note

The 4th quarter is when Roy takes over, and only Cleveland won more games in the 4th quarter than Portland did (meaning, coming back after being down going into the 4th). Portland also had one of the top records in close games.

This is directly related to Brandon Roy. He’s been very, very clutch and a great go-to guy at the end of games, better than even most Blazer fans expected.

Roy will never be a top NBA scorer, but he’s already a Dwyane Wade-lite, who either gets the game winning shot or game winning assist. With LMA being a great scorer, and Oden being a monster down low, having a go-to scorer is something I don’t think Blazer fans worry about.

Roy has been one of the best in the NBA at the end of games, and the numbers support it.

Baron Davis is awesome, but I don’t see what players the Blazers have outside the big 3 that is worth Baron, and I don’t think Baron’s reputation would allow Blazers’ management to get him. Plus, everyone likes the ball in Roy’s hands and I doubt Baron would like that.

Mortimer

by Mortimer on Jun 10, 2008 3:01 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Yeah

And I don’t see how having Baron take the last shot is any better than Roy.

"My, that is a handsome fella. He must be the offspring of a Greek God!" - Bill Walton calling a Clipper's-Laker's game as Luke Walton checks in.

by JTDuck22 on Jun 11, 2008 11:01 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

.

This is why we draft our project big man.

by ejdacanay on Jun 8, 2008 8:31 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

i'm with you on most of that

but when you say the west will be older, not weaker, it seems like that would require this year’s contenders to have been built on supporting casts in their primes, not well past them. dallas will not be better than us this year without some serious restructuring. dirk is an elite player, but who else is? can they really win that many games when josh howard is their third best scorer? i just don’t like the way they are built next year. post kidd-trade, they looked bad. they strung together some wins at the end of the year, but don’t see it keeping up. i have no faith in the rockets to do much more than make the playoffs, which i think they will, but they really won’t be able to beat anyone when they get there. they will be a low seed unless tmac and yao stay healthy all year(or even if yao plays like he did before his season ended; leg injuries on a big man are scary), which has as much chance of happening as me suiting up for the dubs this year. phoenix is ready to disappear. they have no bench to speak of and hill and shaq need to do too much to keep the pressure off nash. if i’m a phoenix fan, i am absolutely distraught about trading those picks for cash every year. they won’t have the legs to hold up all year because of that. i agree that we aren’t ready yet until we go out and get some players, but you need to see that we can at least make some noise next year. oh, and i’m equally scared of alexander in a blazers uniform, that could be a steal for them, he looks good. and we definitely need a backup point. baron looked tired at the end of last year. i want to put ads in the paper begging someone to come to the bay and back up baron. of course, if baron opts out, just blow it up and build around the young guys i’d want traded for some wins this year. without him we aren’t a playoff team or even close to it.

by cap'n hack on Jun 8, 2008 9:40 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

West is getting harder if anything

1—3. Lakers, Hornets, Jazz are locked into the play offs excluding mass injury.

4. San Antonio still has a reasonably young big 3, so i don’t think they are out yet as long as they try to pick up some young guys via Free agency.
5.Houston if they remain healthy and Tmac plays with some heart they have a great chance.
6-10 are all pretty interchangeable, this is what i think could happen.
6. Suns, even though they are getting a new coach, I don’t think he can screw up their system enough to get them out of the play offs. Shaq on the other hand….
7. I’m putting Portland in 7 if Oden doesn’t turn out to be a bust. They had a pretty good team last year, they should improve considering most of their guys are young.
8. Denver, even with all their issues, they still have a solid lineup. They definately have an edge over the current warriors, unless the warriors start to cultivate their bench.
9. Dalls, I am not sure if they are going to make play offs. Kidd and Dirk are great, but unless their coaching system is turned around 100% i don’t seem them contending. I guess it is going to depend on their new coach. Nevertheless i am sure they will put up a great fight.
10. I place them in 10th with a ?. They have what it takes to compete with the west’s elite, but not on a consistent basis. If they used their bench well, they could be a much bigger threat.

11. I am putting Sacramento here. Not sure what their offseason plans are, but Kevin Martin and Ron Artest can definately get their team flowing.
12. Clippers?
13. Seattle?
14. Minesota?

by Luckyhmb1 on Jun 8, 2008 11:42 AM PDT   0 recs

quick point that ended up being not so quick

you just listed all the reasons that the west will be getting a little worse, but just don’t think the warriors have the right team to get in, in spite of it. the only team that you said would be stronger was the blazers. why all the faith in the suns? steve nash’s supporting cast is much worse this year and his back gave him issues when he didn’t have to put his whole team on it. they have stat, nash, barbosa and bell playing with guys who are going to be worse next year. maybe a lot worse. the “system” that you spoke of died the day they signed grant hill and they danced on its grave by trading for shaq. that system was based on surrounding a great transition point in nash with guys who could run and shoot. barbosa is the only guy who meets that description anymore. porter’s got his work cut out for him. as for denver, chemistry issues don’t iron themselves out. on paper, they look like a top four team in the west, but no one will convince them to play defense and assuming the tenuous, i’ll get mine this time, you get yours next time, offense continues to create friction, they are ripe to fall off the map. also, they have no point guard, which contributes to the lack of movement on offense. i thought houston was a paper tiger all year and they just don’t scare me. too many health problems and no one who you can say will step up and lead them come playoff time. san antonio will probably get the 4 this year, but with the way they were worn out in the western finals, if that bench gets weaker, they could run out of gas even earlier this coming year and could be one and done in the playoffs. there are more playoff contenders in the west this coming year, but less championship contenders.

by cap'n hack on Jun 8, 2008 9:24 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I see two paths for Dubs

1.Trade BD, AL for first round pick(s) if possible and we’re going to be a force in a year or two

2. Trade some of our youngs(or even starters) and bench + TPE+ picks +(use your imagination) for the franchise player if there is one available(doubtfull, but you never know)

There is also the third way which is keep the team intact(core) and figt a bloody battle with possibly 12 teams in the west for a PO spot and a first round exit. Third option is IMO not acceptable because it’s a status quo situation on the final year of BD and Nellie.

by buky on Jun 8, 2008 3:20 PM PDT   0 recs

asdf

WHAT ABOUT MAKING AVERY JOHNSON OUR DEFENSIVE COACH?

ELEVATION SENSATON

by the noTORious TOR on Jun 8, 2008 4:03 PM PDT   0 recs

TRADE RUMOR

From hoopshype-http://hoopshype.com/rumors.htm
something along the lines of Denver and Detroit swap Billups for Carmelo.

-Detroit might be willing to do this because they need to improve their offense and they love Stuckey and might turn the PG spot over to him. Theyd get significantly younger and could then either try to trade ‘Sheed for a young big guy and put prince and Carmelo together at the 3/4 or even bump Sheed to the 5 and let his contract expire the following year.
-Denver might be willing to do it because its obvious (to me anyway) that having AI and Carmelo together doesnt work. Carmelo is much more trade-able asset than Iverson and Chauncey would compliment the Answer well in the backcourt. They have a couple guys who could fill in for Carmelo (Kleiza/Smith) and theyd actually be built to contend next year by dramatically improving their defense and giving the veteran core of Camby, Iverson, and Billups a couple years to try to bring a championship to Denver.

I hope it doesnt happen for the warriors sake because I think it would make Denver a much stronger team rather than just a collection of incredible talent, a tougher matchup for the dubs (Billups v. Baron, Monta v. Iverson, rather than one of them always having a significant size/quickness mismatch) and make it that much harder for Baron to make the All-Star squad. On the plus side, Sheed would probably be more available I guess.

by sam23 on Jun 8, 2008 9:56 PM PDT   0 recs

But remember

As teams like the Suns, Spurs, Nuggets, and Mavericks decline, teams like the supersonics, blazers, and t-wolves are getting better, and the lakers, jazz, and hornets are looking scary good. Right now, it seems like 10 teams dominate the west, and 3 teams do terrible, and those 3 teams get high draft picks, and become powerhouses. Unless a couple huge bust in the west or a jordan-like superstar hits the east, expect the same for quiet some time.

According to the comminsioner of the nfl, 104 people retired last year. 7 due to age, and the rest because of Patrick Willis

by montasmob69 on Jun 9, 2008 12:23 PM PDT   0 recs

The Sonics and T-wolves can get a lot better and still be terrible. I’ll fear Durant when he learns to shoot straight and stops costing them more than he provides.

by jae on Jun 9, 2008 1:16 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Durant

is still on the short list of guys I’d swap Monta for. Dude isnt even 20 years old yet and was asked to be the Man on his squad as a rookie. I’d be a little hesitant to hate on him just yet, go back and watch a couple of his games at Texas if you aren’t at least a little scared.

by sam23 on Jun 9, 2008 1:41 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Who is “hating on” him? I’m pointing out that he was anointed a world beater coming out of college but has been far, far less than that so far. He’s still regarded on potential, not on actual results.

He was a beast at Texas. He could score from anywhere on the court and he was a magnet for rebounds. Unfortunately, the Sonics have totally misused him. He’s got guard skills with the height of a PF. I think they got terrified by his lack of upper body strength and moved him to the wing. He’s got guard skills, but not elite guard skills, and the farther away from the rim they leave him, the more they diminish his asset as a rebounder, shot blocker. Asking him to carry the load as a rookie was also a mistake, but until he shows he can do more than score by shooting too damn much, I’ll still reserve fearing his team. He fell into the trap of thinking that winning comes from scoring. His coach seemed to allow that mentality. He could as easily wind up Glenn Robinson (who put up remarkably similar numbers in college) if he’s allowed to.

by jae on Jun 9, 2008 3:26 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Except that unlike the Big Dog

Durant is (a) not fat; and (b) has, and will always have, freakish reach. Beyond that, I think he’s a much smoother and more coordinated athlete than Robinson; and, at least superficially, appears to have a better, more positive attitude, and more of a drive to succeed. I’d be pretty shocked if he didn’t have a better NBA career than the Big Dog.

JAE, I totally buy your point about the consistency of players’ rebounding rates from year to year, but I wonder if exceptions shouldn’t be made for guys like Durant who are (a) playing out of their natural position (as you point out); and (b) only 19. After reading your many odes to rebounding, I liken rebounding to OBP in baseball. Like OBP, it seems to correlate more closely than the “traditional” stats to wins; and as with OBP, you can look at a player’s rates as an 18 or 19 year old and generally predict how he’ll perform as a pro. Still, with both metrics, there are plenty of examples of players who struggled initially after jumping up a level of competition.

Given that Durant averaged 11.1 rebounds in 35.9 MPG as a freshman at UT, I guess I’m inclined to give him a mulligan on is poor rookie season. Small sample size, but in his eight games in April he showed a bit of improvement on the glass, averaging 6.4 RPG. Personally, I think we should probably wait till he gets at least another season under his belt to say anything too definitive. Given his ridiculous upside, I’d still gladly trade anyone on the Ws straight up for him. Wouldn’t you?

Sign ^^^^ !!!

by Sleepy Freud on Jun 9, 2008 4:36 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

  • Because* he’s on a rookie deal and as such, isn’t going to break the cap, I’d love to acquire Durant based on his potential, but I wouldn’t mortgage the future for him. I’m not sure I’d give up Monta for him. I wouldn’t give up Biedrins and I wouldn’t give up Baron and if his deal was expiring this year and he was looking for an extension, I’d be much much more than hesitant to offer him a big deal. His rookie season might deserve a mulligan-having PJ as his coach certainly ain’t helping-but it certainly should have opened some eyes and make people question things. He seems to be getting a whole lot more free passes (like a totally undeserved ROY award) than he should.

Coming out of college, he really did look like a sure fire lock for stardom. He appeared to be able to do anything. But in the Vegas Summer League he already showed some real problems. He scored a bunch and got praise in the press, but he shot terribly. He also got outrebounded by almost everyone. And I mean almost everyone as in per minute everyone but Belinelli. In terms of winning games, it’s almost like he (and everyone else) forgot that there was more to him as a player than PPG and accepted this. He should have been used at the forward slot from day one, getting an idea of how much stronger he’d need to get while honing the skills he’ll need to be successful. Instead, he was put in a position where the only thing he’d be able to do to help his team win would be score, where the areas of his game that were more pedestrian (and good for a forward, but terrible for a guard), passing and ball handling, would be exposed, where he’d a plus on nights when the shots fell but a giant liability on nights that he wasn’t.

Sure-fire bets for stardom are not always so sure-fire. I think we’re a little jaded by what Glenn Robinson became and forget just how good he was expected to be. He was taken first in a deep draft class ahead of Hill and Kidd and no one questioned the move. Why? Because he appeared to be able to dominate a game. He was a physical specimen, not player he morphed into. He had small forward skills with power forward muscles.

Durant’s a different type of player for certain, and what he’d done at Texas (and in HS) and may have been beginning to do a reversal. His attitude may be better (I don’t remember issues about Robinson’s attitude in his first couple of years though either). But a positive attitude without a real good idea of what it will take to make his club a winner doesn’t really help. I can also see him, even with the right attitude, of thinking that what he needs to do to win is score-score-score, regardless of how this happens.

by jae on Jun 10, 2008 9:27 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

theres a difference

between fearing the Sonics and fearing Durant. You said he costs the team more than he provides. I dont think thats true, I think the Sonics would have been even worse without him. Yea he wasnt in a good situation and was severely misused, but that wasnt what you seemed to be implying in the first post. Glenn Robinson didn’t come close to Durant type numbers at Purdue as a freshman.

by sam23 on Jun 9, 2008 4:37 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I stand by the assertion that he cost his team more than he helped it. He was a sub-par shooter, he did not rebound well and he turned the ball over. It is possible to estimate from statistical contributions what an individual player does in terms of altering a team’s probability of winning and these estimates indicate that Durant was below par.

No, such estimates aren’t perfect, they’re just very, very good. In Durant’s case, they’re supported by the Sonics’ plus-minus with him in and out that indicates that the team was better when he was off the floor. Since they were a terrible team, it’s not like his backups were world beaters. They were, however, better able to stay close to their opponents than the Sonics were when he played. This is not my opinion. This is empirical data. It doesn’t mean that it will always be the case, but he did not, empirically, make his team better.

Glenn Robinson didn’t play as a freshman, so it’s a bit disingenuous to try to compare their “freshman” stats. He was forced to sit out because he didn’t meet NCAA scholastic minimums for freshman eligibility.

But in his soph year, Robinson’s numbers were remarkably similar to Durant’s. They had almost identical shooting percentage and three point percentage. Purdue wasn’t as high a scoring team overall. They played a slower pace, so his PPG and RPG were somewhat suppressed as a result, but 24.1ppg is pretty close to 25.8. I’d say that the difference in their numbers 24.1 vs 25.8ppg and 9.2 vs 11.1rpg, in tempo neutral comparison isn’t all that different. Is it signficant that Robinson’s came as a 19 and 20 year old vs. Durant as an 18-19 year old? Maybe. But in terms of dominance, their first years were similar. Don’t let hindsight and what happened in his far from promise fulfilling pro career blind us to how Robinson was regarded at the time and what he actually did.

by jae on Jun 10, 2008 10:01 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

statistics..

are always used to make a point or support one’s argument. but they can be easily used to bend the facts. my question is, how would you account for the increase of production by the rest of the team that would be necessary to make up for durant’s production? If you just took him out of the game, that’s 20 pts, 4 boards, and 2 assists that others on the team would need to make up for. regardless of how many turn-overs he made and how well the opposing team played when he was on the court. so, you’re saying that his teammates would and could make up for his production some how without as much negative effects. That doesn’t make any sense.

by oldskool on Jun 10, 2008 10:27 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I’m not just saying that his teammates would and could make up for his production. I’m saying they could and DID make up for that production. That’s what the stats show. I cannot help it if it doesn’t make sense to you, but it’s what really happened.

His 20 points per game (which for what it’s worth, is a statistic) were replaced when he wasn’t playing. Actually, they more than made up for it, since they also played better defense when he rode pine. Here’s some reality: when he was off the court, the Sonics scored 101.6 points per 100 possessions. When he was on the court, they scored 101.5 in the same amount of time. I’d call that about as even as you can get. Yeah, they had to replace his production, and they did replace his production. The bigger difference came at the defensive end where, when he played, they surrendered an abysmal 113.4 per 100 possessions. When he sat, they still stunk ( 104.6 per 100) but weren’t nearly as bad. Replacing his stats wasn’t an issue. It happened. That’s incontrovertible unless you’re out to deny reality. Who got those points? Doesn’t matter. Someone did. It really happened. It really doesn’t matter if you think it made sense. That’s what happened.

Sure, it’s possible that in the 30% of the time that he was on the bench, the opposition all of a sudden got a whole lot worse and when he played, they were a whole lot better, but over the course of a whole season, given the rather dramatic differences seen, that explanation really goes towards special pleading rather than anything remotely likely.

Dismissing the turnovers is a mistake. Every turnover means a possession where your team could not score. Since by definition, the possessions in a game are essentially equal, handing over a possession is costly. Dismissing how many shots it took for him to get his 20 is also a mistake as every shot he took is a shot someone else on the team didn’t take. Since he wasn’t a particularly efficient scorer, his shooting meant more missed shots, which, without someone to grab offensive rebounds, meant a zero for the Sonics. They shot poorly when he was off the court too, but not as poorly.

I’m using stats to support my argument because they do support my argument. If you’re bent on showing that I’m misusing them, feel free to explain why. If you’re dismissing them because you’ve got some nebulous feeling that “stats can show anything” you’re simply being naive in this particular case.

by jae on Jun 10, 2008 11:44 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

your empirical evidence

inherently punishes guys who play major minutes and are volume shooters while rewarding guys who play very few minutes and shoot high percentages. As much as your evidence might contradict it, almost every team has and needs at least one volume shooting scorer. Also dont forget that Durant was the focal point of the offense EVERY night for the Sonics meaning he received a ton of double teams while his replacements rarely did. Statistics are great in making an argument but they can mislead in so many ways, watching games to form opinions almost always trumps studying stat sheets in my opinion. Yes, Robinson’s first eligible year at Purdue was similar to Durant’s first at Texas on paper but again you cant rely solely on a stat sheet. Robinson at Purdue was much like Lebron when he arrived in the NBA-nearly fully develped already. A quick glance at Durant will tell you he is still far from being fully developed, but he is, as Sleepy pointed out, a vastly superior athlete. I dont think Durant is ever going to fill out to be a monster PF, and will probably always be spindly like KG, but I think its remarkable he posted 20 ppg in the NBA as a 19 year old playing with a dramatic strength disadvantage every night. Theres much evidence to suggest the kid WILL get stronger, hone his touch and adjust to the NBA game. There wasnt much to suggest Robinson was going to get much better, in fact his reputation for a poor work ethic and physical fitness should have red flagged him. Durant has no such red flags and all the upside in the world. Jae, I respect your opinions immensely and you always provide great statistical insight but comparing these two shows, in my opinion, just how ignorant (and I dont mean that as an insult, just couldnt come up with a better word) the use of statistics as your sole or primary measure can be.

by sam23 on Jun 10, 2008 12:11 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

your inconsistent argument

Saying that Durant was the focal point of the offense and received the double team might explain some of his poor personal numbers (though it doesn’t explain why he didn’t pass out of the double team). It does nothing to explain why the team shot the ball better without this “high volume shooter” on the floor. It does nothing to explain how, in his absence, the team managed to score as efficiently.

Again, this isn’t about what might happen, about his talent or what might become. It’s about what has happened. What has happened is that he came in and didn’t make his team the least bit better yet.

Statistics can be misleading. (This is especially true when someone who doesn’t understand them tries to use them. These instances are often easy to spot when someone calls them on it and they change the tune, claiming it’s about more than the statistics.) They can also provide insight beyond what watching a game, something that presents itself with an equal number of ways to be mislead, cannot. Simply dismissing stats by saying that they “can be misleading” isn’t an argument. It’s a cop-out. How do you explain that his team performed better when he was off the floor?

You appear to be changing your tune, Sam. At first, it was that Robinson “didn’t come close” to the numbers. That, it seems, is not true. Did you not look at the numbers or did you just ignore them before you made that statement? It sounds very much like you wanted to use statistics (their respective numbers being the stats) but when confronted with this, you’re now saying that the real difference is their physical development. Which one is it? I don’t mean to be insulting either, but you’re not being the least bit consistent with your own words. I don’t find the denouncement of stats from someone like yourself who presents some, then when what he’s presented is demonstrated to be flawed, simply says that it’s not really the stats to have much authority and is itself a rather ignorant stance.

Sam, I don’t mean this as an insult either, but it doesn’t really look to me like you understand how to use statistics. You are free to believe that watching games trumps stats. But two people watching games can come to different conclusions. I don’t think that either method is useful in a vacuum, and believe that stats can, and often do, provide insight that simply watching a game cannot reveal. (I also don’t believe that stats nay-sayers don’t use stats as they’ll site the number of points that someone scores readily. What they don’t tend to do is have one iota of real understanding of the context of the stats and are, in my not at all limited understanding of statistics, the ones most guilty of misusing the methods.

Now again, how exactly are the stats that I’ve presented misleading? How exactly do you explain that his team performed better without him? Hint: simply parroting that “stats can be misleading” isn’t an argument. It’s a cop-out.

by jae on Jun 10, 2008 1:11 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

show me...

the stats that show that it wasn’t seattle’s bench making up the difference vs. opposing teams’ bench and I will concede to your argument.

by oldskool on Jun 10, 2008 1:31 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

show me

Seattle without Durant posting the same record and I’ll concede the argument. A few minutes a game doesnt translate to reality. Its a huge assumption to stats from a few minutes a game and say they are indicative of how the team would play without him over an extended period of time.

by sam23 on Jun 10, 2008 2:10 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I know

two people can come to different conclusions watching the games which is part of what makes it so entertaining. two people looking at a stat sheet can also draw different conclusions though. I’m not saying stats are worthless at all, just in some cases I dont think they are indicative of reality. I cant imagine Seattle wouldve been a better team over an extended period of time without Durant. His team may have performed better with him on the bench for 5,10, or 15 minutes a game, but I certainly dont think that means they wouldve been better off without him entirely.

by sam23 on Jun 10, 2008 2:17 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

to add...

to sam’s argument. jae, you also do not take into account that the players on the court when durrant sits aren’t the same as when he’s on the court. so, you should suggest that seattle’s bench is better than opposing teams’ bench. isn’t it baffling to you that the rookie of the tear and best player on seattle cause his team to lose so much (according to your stats)? you should try to use your stats to prove the obvious truth that durrant is an awsome player. rather than fighting it. ...think: hmmm. the bench, oh ok. now it makes sense!

by oldskool on Jun 10, 2008 1:20 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Are you serious?!?

It’s not “my stats” that suggest that Seattle lost so much. It’s their record. They won 20 games all season. How valuable could Durant be for them to be so terrible and they were terrible? What I’m presenting is that they were terrible with Durant and somewhat better without him.

Yeah. Seattle had a better bench than their opposition and the benches were always matched up against each other. Sure. That’s got to be it. Because benches always play against other benches and 20 win teams have good benches.

Do you actually believe that Seattle’s bench (that 20-win powerhouse!) was consistently better than their opposition so consistently that for 30% of the minutes they played (roughly 25 games worth of playing time) they were able to rather dramatically outclass their starters? It’s possible that the bench just played so much better because it always happened that they rotated in. It’s possible that those bench players were just so good and were always coming in when the oppositions bench came in such that it was just so much easier and they distanced themselves from the squad that Durant played with and against. But that’s not particularly likely. We are not talking about a couple of minutes here. We’re talking about many, many games worth of data with and without Durant. It’s bordering on absurd to believe that a matchup against weak opposition benches more or less whenever Durant walked off the floor accounts for the numbers.

Given that it’s very, very rare for wholesale substitutions to always coincide such that all starters go out in favor of reserves on both teams, using that to explain away why the Sonics performed better without Durant on the floor fails the smell test. Seriously, it’s rare the case that all the starters are pulled at a time and subs are immediately matched against backups. It’s also vanishingly improbable that Seattle had a bench that was good, but starters that were terrible and yet only managed 20 wins. That sort of explanation is what’s called “special pleading”, presenting a vanishingly unlikely scenario to dismiss data.

Is it baffling that the rookie of the year caused his team to lose so much? Not particularly. The sportswriters who chose the award are guilty of the same popularity contests and same flawed vision of him, remembering a) the player they saw at Texas and b) 20 points per game (something that without context doesn’t mean very much) and conclude he must be the ROY. Their conclusion was flawed.

As to whether or not he was Seattle's "best player", that is a matter of debate.  He may be be the most talented athlete, but in terms of results on the court, he wasn't their best player last year.

by jae on Jun 10, 2008 2:06 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

what warrior

would you not trade for him in a straight up trade?

by sam23 on Jun 10, 2008 2:11 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

let me explain it to you...

it’s actually pretty simple…
seattle was on the losing side for 60+ of their games. for the 35 min per game durrant was in they were losing. so, in the end of each game, when the outcome has already been decided, the bench players come in during “garbage time” and make up a few points. in the course of an entire season, this stat accumulates and looks pretty solid that durrant’s performance did nothing towards increasing seattle’s chances of winning. if he’s in there for almost the entire game, and only a few minutes per game show that the team is better without him, then, that’s what I call bending the stats. now if he only played half as many minutes per game and the team played better without him, then maybe you have a case… but you failed to prove your point. so, please calm down.

by oldskool on Jun 10, 2008 2:18 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

“Oldskool”, the problem with your explanation is that if true, we’d expect to see roughly the same result for the rest of Seattle’s starters. We’d expect that the major minute players would all see negative net plus minus because the garbage time players would swamp them. But that’s not the universal pattern. The Sonics didn’t show the same relative improvement when Wilcox or Watson left the court. It’s a peculiar cummulative garbage time you’re presenting that affected Durant’s relative rating but didn’t produce a similar effect on all starters. Your explanation falls apart in that light. Again, it’s what’s called special pleading where a case applies only to a single explanation but doesn’t seem to hold up to deeper analysis. Sorry.

Let’s be very clear about what was going on in Seattle. They stunk with him. They were not defeating their opponents when he was on the court. They were not winning when he was off the court either, but they weren’t as bad during this time. The same pattern does not hold for all of Seattle’s regular starters. It’s really a matter of the team sucking less when Durant sat on the bench.

It’s always great when someone who seems to lack an elementary understanding of something declares that I’ve failed to prove my point. You failed to make sense. So please, calm down. (And while you’re calm, learning a bit about statistics and the ‘shift’ key on your computer wouldn’t hurt you.)

by jae on Jun 10, 2008 3:33 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

whatever...

here’s your stats for wilcox = -185 for 1738 min played. for watson = -439 in 2265 min played. durrant = -657 in 2764 min played. these stats prove you wrong about the assumption that not all starters were affected by my explanation of durrant’s low effectiveness in games. if you check the stats before opening your mouth, then you can have an argument. but if you challenge me with only the intent to disprove my logic, then you need to come up with the stats to support your case as well. this is exactly what I mean when bending truth by using stats. you use them when convenient to state your argument, then disregard them and say whatever you want to when you have no supporting evidence. give it up. durrant is a great player, and there’s nothing yoiu can do to make anyone in their right mind think otherwise. nuff said… move on.

by oldskool on Jun 10, 2008 5:40 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

These stats show that you either a) cannot read what I

Check out THESE stats: http://www.82games.com/0708/0708SEA.HTM
Note the “net” column for plus-minus. That is what one looks at to determine the difference between a player’s on and off court influence, not the raw plus-minus you put forward that only shows that the whole team stunk. These are stats that disprove your “logic” (such that it is).

wrote, b) did not read what I wrote and/or c) don’t know the difference between gross and net plus-minus.

The stats do not prove me wrong. They only prove that you don’t have a clue what they mean. I wasn’t challenging you to disprove your “logic” (a peculiar term for what you put forward as it isn’t particularly logical) but challenging you because what you put up was false and the inferences you drew from these data were faulty. Wilcox and Watson were negative plus minus, but the team was not AS negative when they played as when they sat. This is the net difference between their presence and absence. This is not true for Durant. This runs counter to your ‘explanation’ such that it was.

by jae on Jun 10, 2008 6:02 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I hate the +/-

stat. It never shows how effective a player was when he was on the court.

I see both sides of Jae’s and Oldschool/Sam’s arguments. Everyone uses statistics when relevant and disregards them when they don’t conveniently fit into their argument. That should be a given. haha.

Durant had a pretty ineffective year, I agree to that. The Stats back that up. But when you watch the tape, he was the first option on their team as a rookie. He’s far from a finished product. And i don’t think that’s your argument JAE. You’re not saying Durant will be a crap player in the League for the rest of his career, but his rookie year stunk. But, there are always silver linings (Sam23 and Oldschool’s POV’s) by what the observer sees on the court, rather than looking up stats. He was widely regarded as the guy with the target on his chest to opposing defenses. Thus he had the added pressure of having the other team’s best defender out on him, as well as a game plan suited to his tendencies.

Another thing, as has been pointed out, is the way Seattle chose to use Durant. He played out of position at the SG position. A position suited mainly for scoring. If he could play the SF position, he may be situated more closer to the basket, rather than on the wing like traditional 2-guards play.

But, he wasn’t physically ready to play the SF position (0 reps on a 185lbs. bench press!!). It’s hard to imagine Seattle not being able to work on his strength and conditioning throughout the season so that as it wore on, he could step into the 3 spot and contribute some quality minutes. This way he could contribute more to the game other than just scoring from the wing on long jumpers.

With this strength, he could theoretically add a post up game to his repertoire. This way he can get higher percentage shots and get his team easy shots.

Durant still has the upside to get better and become a franchise SF. He had a superficial season last year, but looking closer he still has tons of room for improvement before he hits his ceiling.

Warriors, Stupidest franchise in the league.

by kenntoe on Jun 10, 2008 11:41 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Which is exactly what I already said. You’re looking at meaningless numbers, “oldskool.” At issue isn’t that the whole team stunk, but that they stunk more when Durant played than when he sat. Is this concept lost on you or are you just willfully ignorant?

by jae on Jun 10, 2008 6:03 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

sheesh...

I understand the stats. but looking at it from a net perspective, I think is a better way to compare off court/ on court stats, since in this case, you are talking about 35 min on court vs. only 5 minutes off court. you can’t simply assume that 5 minutes is enough to represent durrant’s off-court stats. there are too many variables that you cannot just guess that if you took away durrant, the team is better off, even slightly. furthermore, if it’s this slight difference of the team’s improvement that you are trying to measure, then it’s an even greater assumption to say that the team would be able to make up for his production for 35 min a game. it’s like trying to prove that the rockets were better off after yao got injured. sure they all made up for his absence and continued the winning streak. but that short span of winning ended and it was obvious that the rockets weren’t as good without yao.

by oldskool on Jun 10, 2008 6:21 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

35 + 5 = 40. The Sonics were bad, but they weren’t demoted to the collegiate ranks yet.

Durant played in 70% of the Sonics minutes. This means for 30% of the time, he was not on the court. 30% of 82 games means that there was about 25 games worth of minutes where he wasn’t playing to compare with the time that he was playing. You are free to believe that this is somehow meaningless, but so long as you’re still having problems subtracting 35 from 48, I don’t really see the relevance of your beliefs.

It is not apparent that you do understand the statistics, oldskool, else you would not have presented raw plus minus as an indication of your position since that doesn’t address the issue of whether or not the Sonics performed better (though still bad) when Durant was on or off the floor. You cannot address that without the net plus-minus. Since you didn’t present that, but presented something irrelevant, it appeared that you were confused and/or didn’t know WTF you were talking about.

I never said that if you took away Durant the team would be better off. But it takes a special form of truth denying to believe that their performance with him on the court was better than when he sat. This may not always be true, but it was last year. They had a poorer margin when he played. It’s a fact, ‘oldskool.’ Denying facts is really pretty pathetic.

“There are too many variables.” Ah the last bastion of the hopelessly confused, dead set in abandoning evidence in favor of his own raw assertion. There may be too many variables for you. Luckily, not all of us are so limited in our intellect.

by jae on Jun 10, 2008 9:05 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs