Anthony Randolph, Don Nelson and Nellie Defenders
by Free Zarko on Dec 30, 2009 4:56 PM PST
Email
PrintBridge to Twitterithia, and my Warriors/Sports site
A lot of praise around the internets for the Dubs effort vs. The Lakers. I certainly didn't expect anything but a Laker blowout, so...we should be happy?
Or not. The Warriors have near 50 win talent with a healthy squad, and these efforts should be the norm. The Lakers game was a shining example in how brutally bad lineup decisions are snatching defeat from the splash whiskers of victory. Of course I'm going to talk about Anthony Randolph, and I don't care if people are tired of hearing it. Anthony Randolph, he of the 'too many (gasp!) mistakes,' played a shade under 19 minutes. Who can fault Nellie for that, the kid was clearly overmatched and killing the team? I mean, getting only 5 blocked shots, going 3/5, 5 assists, a whole turnover, making Lamar Odom pee his pants...Hey, whenever you can sub out a guy on pace for a quadruple double for the unshaven corpse of Vladimir 'rather be snowboarding' Radmanovic...well, I'll stop with the cloying sarcasm.
Here are the AR per 36 minute totals:
Age Tm Lg G GS MP FG FGA FG% 3P 3PA 3P%
20 GSW NBA 29 5 671 6.4 14.5 .439 0.1 0.3 .200
FT FTA FT% ORB DRB TRB AST STL BLK TOV PF PTS
5.3 6.5 .810 3.3 6.9 10.2 2.1 1.3 2.5 2.4 4.5 18.1
I'll also add Randolph's PER of 18.64 (second on the team). And don't start with that 'but he kills the team chemistry on defense!' The numbers ain't with ya on it. Sorry.
Here is Don Nelson's record since the beginning of last season: 38-75. To those waiting for Nellie to coach us back from oblivion, do yourselves a favor and get super comfy.
I keep banging the same drum because the inexcusable occurs with alarming regularity. Warrior 'drama' gets all the pub, but Nellie's unfettered mind-numbingly destructive lineup decisions is the real overarching trope of the post 'We Believe' era. Nellie's addiction to 'small ball' (or in this case, intentionally losing and passing it off as a strategy) continues unabated, and I have this stupid urge to make the holdouts accept reality: Please, for the sake of sanity, objective truth, and common wisdom, admit that he's coaching the team into the ground. It's painful enough to watch this happen to my favorite team, I don't want to also feel like John Lithgow from 'The Twilight Zone' movie (there's a gremlin doling out minutes to Kurz/Mikki/Vlad!).
It went from frustrating to comical back to frustrating and perhaps back to comical again. At least this losing strategy has it's comedic benefits. One sideshow of the Nellie ball experience is hearing/reading Nellie apologists defend these decisions to the bitter end. As Nellie gets crazier, the apologists are forced into odd contortions. If Randolph balls it up in mingy minutes, we get something like, 'Hey, Randolph grabbed two more rebounds after he was yanked and Nellie talked to him, yay Nellie!' Father knows best, right? I'm sure he has his reasons, huh? I'd be more inclined to believe this if Nellie hadn't pulled the same crap with virtually every young big who had the misfortune of suiting up for him. Look, I have nothing but love for all the Dubs fans out there, and I want the Nellie lovers to be correct...but I don't think we're at a point of arguing the subjective anymore. As in, one can argue that Wade is superior to Kobe Bryant, or vice versa. One cannot reasonably argue that Anthony Parker is superior to Kobe. And you can't make solid, data-based arguments for keeping the 20 year old on the bench.
The paternalistic excuses for Nellie's handling of Randolph have officially jumped the shark. Nellie's not raising a child, he's keeping one of his best players off the court in favor of NBA dregs. This isn't 1972, we have endless empirical evidence to prove a coaching failure. Warriors Fans, it's time to wake up and smell the scotch: Your coach is hurting the team.
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!
152 comments
|
4 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Nice write up Zarko...
I’m sure you’ll get a lot of blow back for it but keep fighting the good fight!!!
MORE TIME FOR AR!!!
Biedrins and Turiaf are back, and they ate up all of the time at C (as they probably should). Don (and you may not care about what Don thinks) has repeatedly called AR a 5 at this point in his career. Empirically, he seems better against 5’s offensively, and not very effective as a 4 at all.
Defensively, he got absolutely schooled by Gasol on one play (when he leaned in and Gasol spun off him). More importantly, the Laker bigs were grabbing way too many offensive rebounds and it’s fair to assume part of that was due to AR’s non-presence on the boards in the first quarter.
It was a weird game. LA played Kobe at the 4 at one point. Vlad did a decent job on him- can you imagine putting AR on Kobe?
These are just a few examples of non data-based arguments which, though they may not be as immediately convincing as a list of numbers, should factor into a coaching decision.
And you can’t make solid, data-based arguments for keeping the 20 year old on the bench.
This isn’t 1972, we have endless empirical evidence to prove a coaching failure.
Numbers are great. Numbers are also inherently reductionist and in no way meant to be an end-all solution or a replacement for basketball “savoir faire.” There are a number of arguments for keeping AR planted on the bench- though they may not be data-based, they can still be legitimate. Unfortunately, they might be arguments, for one reason or another, fans can’t understand or even access.
Anyone can read numbers off a screen, many people can interpret those numbers. Yet NBA teams still aren’t coached by stats majors.
by antihero on Dec 30, 2009 5:42 PM PST reply actions 2 recs
The thing about basketball
is that numbers tell maybe 40% of the story.
by Reverend_Randy on Dec 30, 2009 6:25 PM PST up reply actions
Actually it's more like 90% ...
… but thanks for playing.
(See Berri, “The Wages of Wins” and others.)
I don't know
because the team that scores the most points wins 100% of the time…
I've never heard that before
ever. In fact, I’ve only heard the opposite.
I’ve heard it from statisticians and players.
So you’re going to have to give me some more direct quotes before I buy that.
by Reverend_Randy on Jan 1, 2010 2:43 PM PST up reply actions
Have you read "The Wages of Wins?"
Don’t have a copy in front of me, but it seems like it’s mandatory reading for this part of the discussion, so sorry I can’t give you an exact page number.
The point is that you can regress a team’s individual statistics and corrleate that to their wins with an R-squared of about .9. Maybe JAE has a copy handy?
Biedrins and Turiaf are back, and they ate up all of the time at C (as they probably should). Don (and you may not care about what Don thinks) has repeatedly called AR a 5 at this point in his career. Empirically, he seems better against 5’s offensively, and not very effective as a 4 at all.
Unfortunately this says more about Nellie than about Randolph.
In MOST offensive systems in basketball, there is no difference between what a 4 and a 5 does. Often, a player is called a “center” simply because he defends the tallest opponent.
There are exceptions to that rule, however – and one of those exceptions is Nellie’s offense. In Nellie’s offense, the 4 is much closer to a three. This is a large part of why we so constantly get outrebounded: rather than run two rebounders, two wings, and a distributor, we’ve been running one rebounder, three wings and a distributor. It doesn’t matter how good a rebounder Biedrins is, if he’s playing 1-on-2 against other bigs, we’re going to rebound poorly.
In other words, the only reason Randolph is better suited to playing 5 than 4 is because of Nellie’s cockamamie offense.
Numbers may not be the be-all, end-all, but when the numbers suggest we’d do substantially better with a more conventional lineup, it should take a pretty compelling argument to keep running Maggette out there at the 4.
Incidentally, complaining about Randolph’s non-presence on the glass doesn’t make any sense since, in the game in question, Randolph’s per-minute rebounding numbers were better than anybody else’s on the team.
by Ronaldinho on Dec 30, 2009 10:23 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
well it has nothing to do with the fact Randolph has no low post game or mid-range shot
So how can you put that next to Biedrins or Turiaf who are to a degree offensively limited as well.
Marco Belinelli's Biggest Fan
by montadaboss on Dec 30, 2009 10:28 PM PST up reply actions
Randolph actually does have a developing mid-range shot and it’s becoming respectable. That mentality is the kind of garbage Nelson has brainwashed into this franchise: that having a 4 who can score (Maggette, Harrington, Acie Law) is more important than matching up correctly on defense and on the boards.
"We Deserve"
but he doesn't help on defense
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
by monta.da.boss on Dec 30, 2009 11:14 PM PST up reply actions
His TS% is a heck of a lot better than Turiaf's.
He rebounds better, too.
He struggles with on-the-ball defense against bigger players. But, of course, that weakness would be less obvious if you played him as a four rather than a 5!.
To say nothing of claiming that Randolph’s one-on-one defense is keeping him off the court makes no sense on a team which gives a lot of minutes to Monta Ellis, Stephen Curry, and Corey Maggette.
As for your larger question of putting two “offensively limited” players out there together, honestly, there are only so many basketballs to go around. The guards and wings should be taking most of the shots on this team. No post game? Maggette doesn’t have a f’ing post game.
Running the offense primarily through three players isn’t anything new to Nellie. Remember Run-TMC? Tyrone Hill, Tom Tolbert, and Alton Liston were pretty “offensively limited.”
Maggette doesn’t have a f’ing post game.
One, i am banned for the word pissed?
And maggette is our best post up player in my opinion. Monta and Maggette are good defenders.
But he’s been beat by various 4’s. Unless you consider David West, Amare, KG, Big Baby, Gasol, and Odom centers?
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
by monta.da.boss on Dec 31, 2009 1:29 AM PST up reply actions
Yeah
you’re not allowed to swear on this site.
by Reverend_Randy on Jan 1, 2010 2:44 PM PST up reply actions
i was saying he said that
and he wasnt reprimanded
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
by monta.da.boss on Jan 1, 2010 5:47 PM PST up reply actions
In MOST offensive systems in basketball, there is no difference between what a 4 and a 5 does. Often, a player is called a "center" simply because he defends the tallest opponent.
I’d have to disagree. If I understand what you’re saying, it’s that frontcourt positionality matters defensively but not offensively. If it were really the case that 4’s and 5’s were identical offensively, why not conflate them defensively as well? And then why not scrap the whole idea of positions, and just run “bigs?”
In Randolph’s case, I think his offensive skills are pretty good for facing centers right now. He has a lot of quick moves, not a lot of overpowering ones. His improving range can actually work well against centers (like Perk). I don’t necessarily think 5 is his natural position though, just that when Biedrins and Turiaf were out he more than capably could play the 5. Again, there has been one night since we’ve had our C’s back, and last night was a strange game with the Lakers largely going small (ha).
Quite honestly, like belilaugh said below, I don’t think Randolph is ready for crunch time against a team like the Lakers. Maturity has always been an issue for him, and I’m not sure his inexperience could cut it in the 4th against the world champions.
If I understand what you’re saying, it’s that frontcourt positionality matters defensively but not offensively. If it were really the case that 4’s and 5’s were identical offensively, why not conflate them defensively as well? And then why not scrap the whole idea of positions, and just run "bigs?"
Well, yes. The guard/forward/center language is pretty well cemented in how we talk about the game, but surely you’ve noticed how 2s and 3s are pretty much interchangeable, no? Let me ask you this, in a traditional basketball offense, what does a center do that a PF doesn’t do? (Nothing). Does Tim Duncan’s offensive role change – at all? – when he’s the team’s center compared to when he’s the team’s PF? (Not at all).
Of course, players aren’t interchangeable, but say you’re running a post up offense, usually you’ll run the play to position your best post player in the post – regardless of whether they’re a center or a PF.
Study basketball, and you’ll learn that there’s really no difference there. A center isn’t asked to do anything different than a PF in most offenses. A good first book on basketball from a strategic perspective is “Multiple Offenses and Defenses” by Dean Smith. Now, he focuses on what he did as a coach, so you won’t see a chapter on Nellie-Ball, but it’s a really good first read that explains a lot of this stuff.
Your disagreement is irrelevant. :)
Quite honestly, like belilaugh said below, I don’t think Randolph is ready for crunch time against a team like the Lakers. Maturity has always been an issue for him, and I’m not sure his inexperience could cut it in the 4th against the world champions.
This would make sense as an argument if Randolph was getting lots of time against other opponents. Then you could say, “Well, we had to make an adjustment because of this specific opponent.” But that’s not happening. So any claim that this is, somehow, a strategic decision against the lakers makes no sense at all.
Positionality, as I understand it, has less to do with what a player does absolutely as an individual and more to do with the four players he plays with. In the 4/5 case, a 4 is a 4 not because of what he does per se, but because there’s a player even farther along the position spectrum that one may designate as the 5.
There are obviously pure PFs and pure Cs. For example, you can’t put Biedrins at the 4 spot. To do that would mean there is an even more archetypical 5 on the floor than Biedrins (otherwise, Beans would be the 5 and the other dude would be the 4) And having Biedrins and an even “fivier” Biedrins together obviously presents all sorts of problems for yourself.
If what you’re saying is that positions only matter insofar as we use them to communicate the basic ideas behind them, and are not meaningful in of themselves, then we can agree on that.
I haven’t read the Dean smith book but all I can say is that the college game is a whole different animal, you got teams running 2 guards and 3 forwards most of the time, every pick and roll gets switched, half the teams play zone, etc etc etc. There are really no true centers (last year, just Hasheem Thabeet) so no need for coach Smith to worry about that sort of thing.
its been a long night :) and what a way to cap it off, log on to GSOM to babble about basketball when I am in no condition to do so. Happy new years.
Sure you can play Biedrins as a 5.
WHen somebody says, “archtypical 4” I’m just curious what they mean by that.
What does a “archtypical 4” have that an “archtypical 5” doesn’t?
Put him on the same team as, say, Yao Ming, and Biedrins is suddenly a four. He’s doing exactly the same things he does now, except defensively he’s taking different assignments.
As for Dean Smith’s book, I didn’t recommend it as a be-all, end-all … I recommendd it as a starting point. ANd since you haven’t read it, you really should be hesitant to talk about what it contains and doesn’t contain.
Yao+Beans could work, but only because Yao is a rangy 5. Imagine Beans+Shaq, Beans+Damp? Clog city. Archetypical 4 I may have made up, since all 4s may double as 5s if need be, but I do believe there are pure centers who can’t coexist. Obviously it’s hard enough to find 2 skilled centers as is, but look at Portland’s lineups from 08/09. Not a single one with Oden+the Vanilla Gorilla. I guess you are absolutely right as far as go-to post players all doing the same thing, getting the ball and going to work, so offensively speaking I would hazard a guess at range/spacing capability being central to positions.
And when you say things like “he’s doing exactly the same things he does now” I am curious as to how you arrive at such a conclusion? Because I am actually very interested in how players interact and coexist.
About the Smith book, I was just making a general statement about the college vs. pro game esp. regarding bigs and positionality. I have actually followed Smith teams and UNC for many many years and consider myself a bigger college fan than NBA fan still. But thank you for the recommendation, and I will be sure to check it out sometime.
If numbers are 90% of the game,
they are pretty much the be-all, end-all.
by Reverend_Randy on Jan 1, 2010 2:44 PM PST up reply actions
Yes ... and no.
The box score numbers have phenominal predictive power over a team’s wins and losses.
They give you a great sense of what to expect in trades, etc.They give you a good baseline for evaluating coaches – is a coach coming in below his expected numbers or above. Etc.
But what they don’t account for is changes that change the numbers.
Back in the 80s, for example, the conventional wisdom was that it was impossible to trade with the Lakers, because Magic Johnson was so good that he made everyone else’s numbers better – so the guy you got back wasn’t as good as you thought he was, and the guy you gave up ended up doing better for them than he did for you.
You similarly describe a Nash/D’Antoni effect. Nash’s effect goes beyond his numbers, in that the offense flows so well that other player’s numbers (I’m looking at you, Marion) improve. The numbers may capture the whole effect, but they may not give credit for it properly. (This is, for example, the argument, in reverse, that Maggette actually hurts us.) This is a very hard argument to make statistically because you usually don’t have great sample sizes, but I suspect anyone who’s watched much basketball has “felt” it intuitively.
AR played minutes at center against Boston. Didn't watch the Laker game live.
Warriors, Stupidest franchise in the league.
I told Randolph that Bill Russell would tell him to keep that ball in play and start the break.
RANDOLPH: "I know. But sometimes, you gotta let ‘em know."
(MT)
Thoughtful response, antihero
But I wonder, at what point do we stop giving Nellie this lengthy a leash? When the numbers people (Berri, Hollinger) are so set against him and losses keep piling up, at a certain point don’t we have to admit the emperor has no clothes (scratch that, hard to think about Nellie and ‘no clothes’ in the same sentence)?
ES
You’re right, reconciling advanced stats with more conventional ways of seeing is difficult. The numbers trend has just recently sprung up, and people too often fall into two camps: stat worshippers and stat deniers.
One thing we must keep in mind is that tremendously bad fortune has all but eliminated us from playoff and championship contention this season. With that in mind, there may be more important things at stake than individual wins and losses, which is the only language “numbers people” know.
I agree with both of you, not that you should care
With good stats and good basketball instincts you can’t go wrong.
The stats should be the guide, but you can never totally trust either method as a cure all. (not saying either of you said this). The NBA is so complex that not using some kind of stat analysis is foolish, but not having the instincts to build a proper team is equally problematic.
Sometimes the players you need the most are the ones with the crappiest stats, (the dirty work guy, the energy guy, the glue guy, or any other guy). The player that boxes out his man, so his teammate can get the rebound, is just as important. Not saying that stats analysis can’t account for this guy, but you still have to interpret the accumulated data.
I don’t know where Nellie and the W’s fit on that spectrum, I’m just speaking from a general point of view. I can only hope that they have at least one guy somewhere crunching numbers,
It's actually pretty rare that a guy with crappy stats is the guy you want on the floor.
Could you come up with some examples of that, please?
The guy who boxes out his man tends to get a reasonable number of rebounds. The “energy” guy tends to generate steals. The “dirty work” guy gets a lot of rebounds.
The truth is, most of that stuff shows up in the box score. What it doesn’t do is appear as “points per game” which is how a lot of people tend to look at stats.
I’d love to hear who you think of as an essential player who’s contributions show up on the stat sheet. Then we can examine what his stats really show.
Shane Battier
Never a very stellar athlete and never really good huge numbers. But he was somebody I would never mind on my team cause he DOES keep a team together and does all the dirty work, a la Turiaf.
WARRIORS BASKETBALL!!! Patiently waiting for a title...I may be waiting for a long time...
by JustSomeName on Dec 31, 2009 11:04 AM PST up reply actions
I suspected you would pick Battier ...
The statistics actually do say that Battier is very good.
Dave Berri actually did a post on him a while back. Here it is:
http://dberri.wordpress.com/2009/02/18/back-to-battier/
As is often the case, when somebody says, “The statistics say this guy isn’t very good,” what they mean is that conventional statistics say a guy isn’t very good. Points and rebounds per game, for example. Anyway, Berri goes into this in depth, so I don’t have to … but do check out his article.
Not to cop out...
But I was gonna say battier, and I specifically remembered from that NY Times article michael Lewis wrote. Checked the berri article, pretty solid. Gonna have to check his stuff some more. If I can quote myself
The player that boxes out his man, so his teammate can get the rebound, is just as important. Not saying that stats analysis can’t account for this guy, but you still have to interpret the accumulated data.
I agree with you, if a player is having a positive impact it will show up somewhere. But even berri himself in that article had to go a little deeper in his interpretation of the “conventional box score” data. If I read it correctly
So the stats will show that he is indeed a good player, but I think the instincts have to be there to see that value, and make those connections.
I should’ve been clearer and stressed scored points or other glamorous stats.
good link
i think battier is worlds better than turiaf
his win rate is among the best in the league if im not mistaken
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
by monta.da.boss on Jan 1, 2010 1:52 AM PST up reply actions
Jumping in here to further some discussion
Brendan Haywood. Yes his rebounding shows up, but he is no better than average for a center. He shoots moderately efficiently, but won’t kill a team in terms of points.
Arron Afflalo. You simply can’t quantify the way he “shut down” Kobe.
Unless you count adjusted +/- or WARP, but then we are digging too deeply for numbers and you are right, because non-number contributions are now given a number, it’s hard to say that there is really any area of basketball that a player can contribute without it being quantified.
Basically defense is the only area left that a player won’t get numbers for what he contributes. Apart from blocks and steals that is. But even then, adjusted +/- and winshares will show that a little bit.
Just a couple ideas to further some interesting discussion, do with them what you will!
Afflalo is a good defender
But he doesn’t seem to consistently do it well enough to overcome his offensive struggles.
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
by monta.da.boss on Jan 2, 2010 1:17 AM PST up reply actions
cherry pickin'
let’s quote nellie’s record with the warriors only for the last 2 years when 1/2 his squad both seasons has been on the injured list.
let’s forget the 46/48 win seasons after this team hadn’t had a winning season in 13 years.
let’s cherry pick data to make nellie look as bad as possible.
the warriors just beat PHX and BOS and were neck and neck with LAL for 46 minutes on a back to back on the road.
and you’re complaining?
the warriors get their 2 centers back and…surprise….they’re better.
by joegiant on Dec 30, 2009 5:51 PM PST reply actions 8 recs
Well said.
This post made me laugh….. Then I scrolled down and saw people agreeing….. To each his own right?
by VERY VERY BUSY on Dec 31, 2009 1:32 PM PST up reply actions
if this post made you laugh
then you really need to watch more warrior games
by randolphforpresident on Dec 31, 2009 10:13 PM PST up reply actions
I laughed too
and I haven’t missed a game this year.
by Reverend_Randy on Jan 1, 2010 2:54 PM PST up reply actions
Well said. Where would the Warriors be without Nellie? Without the 42 and 48 win seasons and without the upset over the Mavs, that’s for sure.
While I disagree with Don Nelson’s refusal to play Randolph, it seems nitpicky to cherrypick one bad decision and two injury-ridden seasons.
"I never watched baseball on TV. It's slow and boring. I'm not a fan. Never was." - Jeff Kent
It's not one or two decisions ...
It’s a pattern in his career which seems to be ossifying.
The “We Believe” team was incredibly well-constructed for what Nellie wanted to do with it. Lots of strength – redundant strength, quite frankly – on the wings, not much inside.
If you have that team, and you want to put your best players on the floor, running something like Nellie-ball makes a ton of sense. It’s a way to exploit the strengths of your team.
But what if you have a team where the way to have your best players on the floor is to run a more conventional lineup? Then running Nellie-ball is dumb. And that’s what we’re seeing now – we’re seeing Nellie insisting on playing Nellie-ball even when he has the players available to be more successful with a conventional lineup.
Look, the injuries have been a huge problem this year. The absence of Beans has created a massive rebounding deficit. But Nelson has had the opportunity to confront that challenge in ways that benefit the long-term prospects of the franchise, and instead he’s running Maggette out there as a PF.
well..
both teams were on the end of a b2b. with the right talent, nellie-ball can work. needs strong backcourt that rebounds well (aka. j-rich, BD) and 1-2 post players that can draw a defense for open shooters (aka. BD, lesser degree Stack). The team currently composed does not work for nellieball. a bunch of 6’6" guys playing the 1-4s where nobody knows the concept of boxing out or screening off the ball. Nellie can do well w/ talent, as with most coaches, but I wonder what Rick Adelman can do with this bunch like in Houston?
I agree AR should be playing more in the beginning of games. But for too long this season, due to injuries, opponents have been able to dump it to their big men when they need crucial points and get them with little resistance, save the occasional heroic block from AR. We had a legitimate defender out there in Turiaf, and he played damn well on Gasol down the stretch. If anyone else on the Warriors besides Biedrins (or maybe Hunter I haven’t seen much of him so I can’t rule it out) was guarding Gasol in the fourth we wouldn’t have gotten any stops.
Plus, in a game like yesterday’s, there was not really a bad player on the Warriors (Curry tailed off at the end a little though).
Plus, I am all for Randolph playing crunch time minutes against a random NBA team, but that was the Lakers. Like it or not, due to Nelson not trusting Randolph, Randolph was too much of an unknown in that situation. We haven’t seen enough of him in that situation, and against the best team in the NBA that could be the highlight of your season if you win, you can’t go with something you don’t know. Yes, this is Nelson’s fault for not knowing what he has, but he made the reasonable move from the situation he created for himself.
Note: I do agree with you in general, but not for this Lakers game. Nelson’s done this before. Remember the 48 win season, how we tired out down the stretch and Nelson was only playing 6 or 7 guys? It was the correct move, because the rest of the bench wasn’t ready to play significant minutes in significant games. But if Nelson would have played players like Wright earlier in the season and made them game ready, he wouldn’t have had that situation and if he played them we might not have burned out. Sometimes I think he purposely puts his team at a disadvantage to develop an underdog mentality in them and keep the pressure off himself. That was it looks like he is maximizing talent though in reality he is only reaching the handicap he set for himself.
I agree with a lot of that, belilaugh, and appreciate the response
But should we let Nellie off the hook for not ‘trusting’ players? That’s Nellie thinking with his (considerable) gut, and coaching out of fear. Also, I’m in the camp that believes the 48 win team would have won more games had Nellie played Biedrins more. I think the small-ball strategy cost the Warriors a playoff spot that year.
ES
Oh yeah, I don’t like it either, and don’t think he should be off the hook. But the solution for those who do not like the situation he created would not be to call for Randolph to play in that spot in the Lakers game. The solution for those who do not like the situation would be to get a new coach that wouldn’t get us in that situation in the first place. At least that is my opinion.
Plus, I am all for Randolph playing crunch time minutes against a random NBA team, but that was the Lakers. Like it or not, due to Nelson not trusting Randolph, Randolph was too much of an unknown in that situation. We haven’t seen enough of him in that situation, and against the best team in the NBA that could be the highlight of your season if you win, you can’t go with something you don’t know
That’s pretty sad if the highlight of our season is a meaningless regular season win in December. If that’s what Don Nelson is coaching for then he’s completely missing the point and vision for this team.
If we haven’t seen Randolph in that situation, then we need to PUT him in that situation and see how he does and what he needs to work on under pressure situations. That game wasn’t Game Seven of the NBA Finals, we don’t have anything at stake really. Why aren’t Randolph and Curry in there getting valuable experience in pressure situations?
"We Deserve"
It's a realistic highlight
for a team that is dealing with a lot of injuries and inconsistent play from would be starters.
by Reverend_Randy on Dec 30, 2009 8:04 PM PST up reply actions
It’s very sad, but is it not true?
Not all regular season games are equal. It’s not Game 7 of the NBA Finals, but it’s not the same as a win against the Miami Heat (for example) would be. For the Warriors, who do not have as much of a history with the Cavs, Celtics, or Magic, what regular season game would be a bigger win than the Lakers at Staples Center (not including 35 point comebacks or miraculous wins)?
If you had a rookie who was ridiculously talented in college but you never played him at all in the regular season, would you play him Game 1 of the playoffs? You could, and yes, I admit some players are unexpected surprises and Randolph might have played very well down the stretch. But if I was a coach I would play players whose games I am familiar with. Now, it is my fault for not playing my ridiculously talented rookie earlier in less pressure-filled situations and learning what I have in him. But if it gets to Game 1 without me playing him, me not playing him is the correct call.
I agree, I wouldn’t play a rookie who I’m not familiar with in the playoffs. But this wasn’t the playoffs, haha. It’s actually an ideal situation to throw Curry and Randolph in there because it ISN’T the playoffs, but it was still an intense game.
Hindsight is 20/20, but we lost the game anyway while Randolph learned how to sit on the bench during crunch time in the 4th while Maggette was getting abused at PF.
Yeah maybe we did beat the Celtics because Nelson benched Curry, maybe it was a genius move by Nelly to put Watson in and have him gamble in the passing lanes all game. But looking at the big picture, wouldn’t you rather have Curry in there getting some experience playing against a player like Rondo? That’s how you get better, playing against the best. After all, next season Curry is going to be our PG not CJ Watson. And when we play the Celtics again what experience is Curry going to have against this team? Basically nothing. He got burned early and then got benched the whole game.
"We Deserve"
Honestly
It wasn’t CJ outplaying Curry. Our defensive scheme against Allen changed. They even said so after the game, rather than fighting through the screens they decided they needed to just go through the passing lanes.
I think Curry could have done just as good of a job as Watson, and it would have been more valuable to us to play Curry more regardless.
You know I spit technique to the freshest freak
Gimme a call you will see results in just a week
With the soul of a LOST HAWK
Is there a heaven for a Rap Cat, let's talk
by LostHawkGSW on Dec 30, 2009 11:08 PM PST up reply actions
the problem is
Nellie hardly ever plays AR in the fourth quarter regardless of our opponent.
by randolphforpresident on Dec 31, 2009 10:18 PM PST up reply actions
Sometimes I think he purposely puts his team at a disadvantage to develop an underdog mentality in them and keep the pressure off himself. That was it looks like he is maximizing talent though in reality he is only reaching the handicap he set for himself.
+1. Ugh. Disgusting.
by UncleCliffy on Dec 31, 2009 12:00 AM PST up reply actions
Um...
….but if he played the young guys early they would have been nowhere near reaching 48 wins by the end of the season. prob more like 37.
btw…48 wins and no playoffs is a record. kinda dubious, though. I think they would have been the 5th seed in the East that season
Do you watch the effing game man
Vlad played really well the past 3 games, and you just want to keep ignoring it. Randolph played well, but he gets destroyed in the low post in individual defense. Vlad is becoming our most reliable low post defender besides Turiaf so start watching the games man. I hate reading your stuff.
Marco Belinelli's Biggest Fan
I do watch the game, sorry you hate reading what I write
Based on watching the games, I think Vlad is a pretty bad post defender, but an adequate perimeter defender. Even if Vlad was Ben Wallace circa 2004 on D, I’m not sure it would justify big minutes, due to his horrendous offensive production.
ES
i'm not saying he is ben wallace
im saying he is playing well.
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
by monta.da.boss on Dec 30, 2009 11:30 PM PST up reply actions
Ben Wallace circa 2004
had horrendous offensive production
by Reverend_Randy on Jan 1, 2010 2:57 PM PST up reply actions
so tim kawakami has a gsom account
and its FRee ZarkO
Marco Belinelli's Biggest Fan
by montadaboss on Dec 30, 2009 6:49 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
im sorry to break it to you
but blocks don’t mean you are a great defender. Matt Steinmetz agreed with me today on his blog that Randolph is an atrocious individual defender. Slower players like BiG Baby davis do slow moves on him and they leave him in the dust. He jumps everytime the opponent moves, he is out of position most of the time, and he chases the ball handler out to mid-court on pick and rolls and most of the time, the opposing point guard just throws it into the center where hes being guarded by curry and he scores.
its very simple.
Radman plays good d but he isnt a shock blocker. Turiaf is usually a good defender, and Biedrins is much better than randolph even though biedrins is not very good. Randolph is the worst defender of that group, although he is much better than mikki(duh!). So Randolph plays well, and Nellie knows the lakers are going to pound it inside, and he doesn’t want Gasol destroying randolph(which he would have) and he puts turiaf on him.
i thought it was a good move. Randolph should have gone in for biedrins or turiaf for a couple of minutes but it wasnt that bad.
Marco Belinelli's Biggest Fan
About the lakers game
Gasol was at center for most of the game…If AR and Turiaf were in together during the times Gasol was at center, AR would have been in Odom and Turiaf on Gasol. I think AR would have done a way better job than maggs on Odom. If you watched the last 6 min of the game, Odom destroyed us on the boards b/c Maggs did a terrible job boxing him out and defending him. AR would have gotten those boards for sure.
You know I spit technique to the freshest freak
Gimme a call you will see results in just a week
With the soul of a LOST HAWK
Is there a heaven for a Rap Cat, let's talk
by LostHawkGSW on Dec 30, 2009 7:23 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
This is the first season in Radmanovic’s whole career that his name has even been mentioned in the same sentence as the word “defense”, and only because he’s now on the no-defense Golden State Warriors.
He’s not a good defender, he’s not a good defender, he’s not a good defender, no matter how many times homer Fitz says it on the telecast or Don Nelson says it in his interviews because he likes to make stuff up. Yeah Radmanovic doesn’t make rookie mistakes on defense, because he’s not a rookie. Maybe he is more solid than Randolph right now due to his shot-blocking “enthusiasm”, but he is still not a good defender. Never has been, and probably never will be.
"We Deserve"
by YaHeard on Dec 30, 2009 7:55 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
actually i was watching the finals 2 years ago
and jeff van gundy and mark jackson said he is a very underated defender.
that his defense and shooting was a big help for the lakers when bynum went down. He was considered a good defender before. Dubzfan has a very low bball iq when it comes to things like this. He went on my respect vlad at games post and was the only one to criticize him about effort, rebounding, and defense.
but he is still not a good defender. Never has been, and probably never will be.
So why does everyone except freezarko junkies think the opposite of this…hmmm
Randolph had a good game last night, but even matt steinmetz said it, even corey maggette is a better post defender than randolph. Randolph really needs to watch the way Monta, Maggette, and Vlad have played lately. They put a ton of effort into the entire game, and they are rewarded with lots of minutes. Once randolph starts playing smarter and putting more effort into the game he will play. its not difficult.
Marco Belinelli's Biggest Fan
let me clarify that what marc jackson says is not really great analysis
But i’m saying that they thought he was a good defender.
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
by monta.da.boss on Dec 31, 2009 7:51 PM PST up reply actions
Good call about blocks not making someone a good defender.
I’d like to add that blocks do nothing if they go back to the team with the ball, as they continue their possession (for that team, it’s like getting an offensive rebound). Blocks are literally the most overrated statistic in basketball. It’s flashier, but it’s like a deflection out of bounds a majority of the time in terms of actual physical impact.
"I never watched baseball on TV. It's slow and boring. I'm not a fan. Never was." - Jeff Kent
Unless it is Turiaf esque-blocks on Kobe
it isn’t very helpful.
D Howard’s blocks look very good but he sends them out of bounds and the other team gets it everytime.
Having a shot blocker’s presence is more important than the actual blocks because it makes the other team cautious when driving.
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
by monta.da.boss on Dec 31, 2009 7:39 PM PST up reply actions
That can be a good thing
if the shot clock is running out. I saw D Howard get a block the other day with 1 second left on the shot clock. Probably just as good as knocking it to a team mate.
by Reverend_Randy on Jan 1, 2010 2:58 PM PST up reply actions
thats not rhe usual block he performs though
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
by monta.da.boss on Jan 1, 2010 5:50 PM PST up reply actions
Shot-blocking
Maybe the stat itself isn’t so important, but shot-blocking is tremendously important. It affects how a player tries to score, where a player tries to score, coach’s substitutions, defensive strategy and pressure, double teams, a whole bunch of things. The boxscore statistic doesn’t say a whole lot, but the ability to block shots is not overrated at all, otherwise basketball players would look alot more like football players.
"We Deserve"
Like i said
Having a shot blocker’s presence is more important than the actual blocks
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
by monta.da.boss on Jan 1, 2010 9:21 PM PST up reply actions
Rec
AR needs more time. Playing and simple.
Rookie: "Why did you bench me?"
Nellie: "You're a rookie"
lol
nice response.
Marco Belinelli's Biggest Fan
by montadaboss on Dec 30, 2009 10:03 PM PST up reply actions
you shouldn't be a grammar cop when your post above shows...
that you have issues putting a correct sentence together….. “He went on my respect vlad at games post and was the only one to criticize him about effort, rebounding, and defense.”
by JimBarnett2KevinGarnett on Dec 30, 2009 10:01 PM PST up reply actions
no you're just pissed
that people like reverend randy and i dont agree with dubzfan’s AR homerism and free zarko’s koolaid.
Marco Belinelli's Biggest Fan
by montadaboss on Dec 30, 2009 10:03 PM PST up reply actions
uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh....
no..just introducing the pot to the kettle
by JimBarnett2KevinGarnett on Dec 30, 2009 10:06 PM PST up reply actions
I was trying to be clever (get it? *playing* and simple)
Bad joke, but I guess you took it too literal.
Rookie: "Why did you bench me?"
Nellie: "You're a rookie"
nice try dubzfan
its ok
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
by monta.da.boss on Dec 31, 2009 1:30 AM PST up reply actions
I'm shocked at how many people on here..
support Nellie’s atrocious coaching and corey maggette’s selfishness…Zarko, this post was right on point. The inconsistent playing time for AR is absolutely unacceptable and will eventually end up leading to a stupid franchise destroying trade…I can see it now, AR + Expirings for David West …a perfect example of Nellie’s terrible treatment of AR was seen in the Celtics game when he yanked him after six consecutive points. The kid was in the zone and gave the dubs the lead during the most crucial run of the game in the third quarter. What does AR get as a result of his awesome contributions? A momentum killing yank to the bench. Inexcusable!
This AR situation is too frustrating to watch. It’s like sitting a little kid in front of an xmas tree but not allowing him to open any presents. We need to see what this kid can do. It’s a lost season and now is the time to play him already! We lucked out big time with such a nice pick at a position of our biggest weakness. What has Nellie done with it? Isolated a potential cornerstone of the franchise, killed his confidence, and has him wanting to bolt out of town as soon as possible. Throw the kid in, let him play, and let him grow. He has so much fire and passion. Why not let him let loose instead of killing his confidence and fire?
by JimBarnett2KevinGarnett on Dec 30, 2009 9:51 PM PST reply actions
this is such a sad situation. I think at this point, the most realistic scenario to see Randolph get significant minutes is to have Nellie get his wins and leave us in peace.
by randolphforpresident on Dec 31, 2009 10:30 PM PST up reply actions
The most realistic scenario in which randolph plays
is when he starts deserving more than 20-25 minutes. Also don’t say that Randolph is the only one who Nellie gives inconsistent time to. He has played Cj, Curry, Morrow, Vlad, Hunter, and Moore all inconsistently this year. He wants them all to prove their minutes. Vlad’s shot was off, he started to play less, then he started to play better and his minutes went up, the same can be said for all of those players(except moore and hunter). But isn’t it odd that Randolph is the only one not getting minutes. It is because he is far too inconsistent. If he has decent numbers against Portland at halftime, i think Nellie will start giving him alot more minutes because that will be his 5th game in a row where he has played well. If Randolph can start showing consistency, he will become a 30 minute per game player.
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
by monta.da.boss on Dec 31, 2009 11:47 PM PST up reply actions
support Nellie’s atrocious coaching and corey maggette’s selfishness
Have you watched a single game in the last 2 weeks? Don’s coaching and Maggette’s play have really stepped up. And i’m not a big fan of either but i know when praise is deserved.
a perfect example of Nellie’s terrible treatment of AR was seen in the Celtics game when he yanked him after six consecutive points.
Uhh, no! He left the young kid in for two straight possessions where Glen “Big Baby” Davis spun around him for dunks. Big Baby’s move was nothing special yet the much quicker Randolph couldn’t seem to put effort into stopping it. So he was yanked. Ta-dah!
A momentum killing yank to the bench
I think AR giving up consecutive dunks to Big Baby was more momentum killing than anything Nelson did, considering we were down when AR was pulled and that at the end of the quarter we were up :p
It’s like sitting a little kid in front of an xmas tree but not allowing him to open any presents. We need to see what this kid can do.
Its more like opening the a present under the tree and you got a ps2 when you wanted a ps3. You keep telling yourself that the Ps2 is great, but you know its nothing like the Ps3….but you’ll keep hoping even though you know what it can do.
What has Nellie done with it? Isolated a potential cornerstone of the franchise, killed his confidence, and has him wanting to bolt out of town as soon as possible.
Randolph doesn’t want to bolt out of town. Imagine if he played for a very hands-on coach like Larry Brown in charlotte, or Gregg Popovich in San Antonio. He wouldn’t get on the court until he actually consistenly proved he was deserving(which he is not).
Throw the kid in, let him play, and let him grow.
So watch him chuck up 18 footers with 15 seconds left on the shot clock, and jump over players like Carl Landry with simple head fakes. Surely promoting bad habits like that will let him grow? :>p
He has so much fire and passion.
He might be the most depressed player in the league. His body language is terrible and the only time I’ve seen him show too much passion was after hitting his 2nd consecutive( Wow, what an accomplishment) wide open 15 footer.
Why not let him let loose
Honestly, there is nothing to really let loose based on his accomplishments. He has shown us what he can do and he is a very inconsistent 7 footer who sits on the perimeter like a statue. Consistently, being the black hole that you describe Maggette. He has no post game, he has very little touch around the basket, and he is very turnover prone. He rebounds well, and gets to the line at a decent rate. I guess that is what we will let loose in the freezarko/dubzfan world.
Marco Belinelli's Biggest Fan
he's also 20 years old
I’m absolutely fine with Nelson benching Randolph when he makes mistakes. But what I hate is when Nelson forgets Randolph is on the bench and we’re getting out-rebounded and allowing lay-up lines to the basket. Taking him out and explaining what went wrong would be a good approach, maybe a little coaching from the fat man if it’s not too much to ask for, he is getting paid $6mil a year after all.
"We Deserve"
i stopped reading after you saying that AR got pulled because Big Baby spun by him for two dunks...
go watch the game again..third quarter…AR hits a mid range jumper…next possession he steals a pass for a dunk…next possession he hits another mid range jumper and starts going hyphy..warriors take the lead…celtics immediately call timeout…after the timeout, AR is on the bench.
by JimBarnett2KevinGarnett on Dec 31, 2009 4:15 PM PST up reply actions
watch it right here..3:19 mark...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TodZs-bR4T0 randolph going hyphy then pulled directly after timeout.
by JimBarnett2KevinGarnett on Dec 31, 2009 4:21 PM PST up reply actions
They arent going to show big baby dunking in a warrior highlight
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
by monta.da.boss on Dec 31, 2009 5:06 PM PST up reply actions
dude...u aren't even responding to the event i'
by JimBarnett2KevinGarnett on Dec 31, 2009 5:14 PM PST up reply actions
im talking about...
Randolph hit 3 straight buckets in the third to give the dubs the lead..celtics called a timeout and then randolph was benched during the timeout…big baby wasn’t even at the game…Obviously you don’t watch the games because big baby dunking on Randolph never happened during the moment I’m referencing…stop reaching and making up stories just to hate on randolph.
by JimBarnett2KevinGarnett on Dec 31, 2009 5:15 PM PST up reply actions
ok ya i was thinking of something else
but it wasn’t that bad though. He brought in Turiaf and Maggette and it seemed like we were up by 5 when he goes out and we get the lead to 9 by the end of the quarter. So if it was so bad, we should have seen the results?
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
by monta.da.boss on Dec 31, 2009 7:50 PM PST up reply actions
Earlier in the 1st half, Randolph hit a jumper and made a nice pass.
Then Big Baby spun around Randolph for the easy dunk/layup. The next time it happened Turiaf blocked it and fouled him.
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
by monta.da.boss on Dec 31, 2009 8:56 PM PST up reply actions
Radolph was benched because Perkins was brought back in.
Nellie is all about match ups. Keep an eye on more than just the obvious. Nellie is agreat coach with a great basketball mind. Stats are nice but are only effective in combination of real game play and knowledge.
Interesting post, in a very unreasonable way. Randolph is still mostly potential. I’d like to see him play more too but, not because he deserves it, because he needs the experience and we need higher draft pick.
by Balance on Jan 2, 2010 12:24 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
AR should be playing more period.
We are rebuilding. He is Young. He is learning. He is being productive. We already know what Vlad and even Mags have to offer. I want to see what AR is made of and has to offer. Nelson calls him a 5 and plays at the top of the key. Then we complain he’s not getting rebounds? Play him at the five but lets still develope him game as a 4 and even a 3 ar times. Im tired of the Warriors picking the Coach over the Player. Please tell me when small ball ever won a championship! Let learn from the past, not forget it. People keep complain about mistakes mistakes mistakes. Funny though that is the only way you can learn from them is making them. He is only 20 and it will come with time. Lets develope or young guys and learn to win. This will be the only way to get it done in Warrior land!
to all of gsom
apparently i have used inapropriate language. i am sorry if anyone found anything i said here to be demeaning/ unapropriate.
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
You got banned cause you don't capitalize
I’m surprised it took this long (no offense). You never capitalize and it’s clearly stated in the rules.
Rookie: "Why did you bench me?"
Nellie: "You're a rookie"
you mean i don't capitalize the start of the sentences
Well, i’ve seen a ton of people on this site do that, but no it said swearing was the issue. I don’t recall swearing but they must have something to justify it.
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
by monta.da.boss on Dec 30, 2009 11:42 PM PST up reply actions
That's what my first account was banned for
You also never capitalize the I. Ask Atman or another mod cause I’ve never seen you swear.
Rookie: "Why did you bench me?"
Nellie: "You're a rookie"
It’s because you mentioned “Radmanovic” and “defense” in the same sentence. Same thing as swearing
"We Deserve"
funny
yet many people agree he is a good defender
you are not among them
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
by monta.da.boss on Dec 31, 2009 12:02 AM PST up reply actions
many people
just repeat on here whatever Fitz says on TV
"We Deserve"
i dont agree with fitz that much
hes very much a fact cherry picker
ive gone to 3 games that vlad has played in and thats where i started to think hes a good defender. fitz has no effect on me.
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
by monta.da.boss on Dec 31, 2009 1:22 AM PST up reply actions
There was no place to play Randolph in the 4th qtr
The 4th qtr started with Gasol and Bynum in the front court. Randolph doesn’t have the strength or skill/experience to guard either one. Later on, Kobe came back, and soon afterwards, Phil Jackson swapped Bynum for Odom, effectively going smaller.
So the majority of the qtr was a mid/front court combo of Kobe, Odom, and Gasol. Randolph can’t guard Gasol, he certainly can’t guard Kobe, and he’s not versatile or experienced enough to guard Odom.
Where can you possibly play Randolph in the 4th?
im sorry for what ive done
and i completely agree about what you said about Randolph.
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
by monta.da.boss on Dec 30, 2009 11:28 PM PST up reply actions
don't apologize to me
i’m not a mod over users
by IQofaWarrior on Dec 30, 2009 11:32 PM PST up reply actions
Someday, we will expect Randolph to have the experience to guard PF’s like Pau Gasol. How is he going to be experienced at guarding him if he is rarely getting a chance to. If not right now, then when?
"We Deserve"
When Randolph bulks up more
so that Tim Duncan and Pau Gasol don’t easily back him into the paint. Also when Randolph shows he can handle the lesser power forwards of the league. Tim Duncan and Pau Gasol are mentally way out of Randolph’s league right now.
by IQofaWarrior on Dec 31, 2009 12:24 AM PST up reply actions
Why does a completely ability to play appropriate defense count against Randolph ...
But not against Maggette, or Monta for that matter?
Are you trying to say that Randolph is a better defender than Maggette or Monta?
by IQofaWarrior on Dec 31, 2009 12:26 AM PST up reply actions
Ya i was going to say.....
Monta and Maggette are good defenders. Randolph is a bad defender.
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
by monta.da.boss on Dec 31, 2009 1:23 AM PST up reply actions
Monta and Maggette are NOT good defenders.
Monta is a terrible defender. He’s shown flashes, this season, of the ability to be a good defender, but he just doesn’t freaking care. Or, rather, he plays, most games like he doesn’t care.
This is typical for guys on Nellie-coached teams, so maybe it’ll change when we fire Nellie.
I'm really confused where you've gotten this idea.
i read an article that said when Monta guarded Danny Granger, Kobe, Durant, and Brandon Roy, that that group of players averaged around 18 points a game on 38% shooting. Enough said.
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
by monta.da.boss on Dec 31, 2009 12:17 PM PST up reply actions
I don't think you been on GSOM in a while huh?
Monta is a very good defender. And Maggs is turning the corner in his game drastically.
Rookie: "Why did you bench me?"
Nellie: "You're a rookie"
Monta just is dead tired on some possessions
Which is completely understandable considering he plays almost every minute of the game.
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
by monta.da.boss on Dec 31, 2009 3:23 PM PST up reply actions
oh really
dang, i wish i had my old account back. i finally thought i was doing well.
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
thanks FZ
it was fun arguing with you
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
by monta.da.boss on Dec 30, 2009 11:40 PM PST up reply actions
Wait a Sec
Are you trying to tell me that Nellie’s “traditional” lineup of Curry/Ellis/Watson/Morrow/Maggette doesn’t work very well? How can that be?
FZ, while we appreciate the quantitative effort, I highly doubt the numbers are necessary. Anyone who doesn’t see what is going on here is either a die-hard homer at all costs or is just pulling the wool over their eyes. Those who argue either: 1) that Nellie has done/is doing a good job; or 2) that AR gets treated properly and gets plenty of minutes; just are not paying attention.
And with the return of the two big men, it will just give Nellie another excuse to leave AR on the bench. He gets to throw out a Watson/Ellis/Maggette/RadMan/Biedrins lineup during important minutes, and we can’t criticize him for small-ball.
Ahhhh Nellie, you are fooling only the fools.
Watson/Ellis/Maggette/RadMan/Biedrins
Dude, that isn’t a bad lineup. I actually think its pretty good.
However, Maggette shouldn’t play the 4 ever again. He is not very good there, and he is very good at the 3.
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
Lineup
Watson/Ellis/Maggette/RadMan/Biedrins
You aren’t sniffin’ the playoffs with that one.
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on Dec 31, 2009 2:30 AM PST up reply actions
i dont think any lineup we can put out there would be sniffing the playoffs
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
by monta.da.boss on Dec 31, 2009 3:30 AM PST up reply actions
Agreed
Start the youngsters (Curry and Randolph) so something can develop for the future. Watson has probably reached his potential right here and Radmanovic may even be past his prime.
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on Dec 31, 2009 3:37 AM PST up reply actions
The playoffs are done this year. Just not going to happen.
You could add LeBron James to our roster right now and we might not make the playoffs.
in the west......
We’d still be in the thick in the east right now.
Eastern Conference’s Slogan: 10 games under .500 and you can still be 6th seed.
West: Good Luck making it under 50 wins.
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
by monta.da.boss on Dec 31, 2009 7:43 PM PST up reply actions
And when i mean pretty good i mean
better than other lineups Nelson can configure.
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
by monta.da.boss on Dec 31, 2009 3:34 AM PST up reply actions
The Warriors have near 50 win talent with a healthy squad
Yeah… you lost me right there with ridiculous speculation.
John 8:44 -Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do.
Well, predicting a number of wins always involves a healthy dose of ridiculous speculation, but if you go by the statistical production of this team when healthy — and round up a bit for the fact that they’re almost all on the upslope of their careers — it really isn’t that much of a stretch to get “near 50.” Check out Berri’s thoughts on the matter if you’re unconvinced. 100% healthy, you have to think this team’s win total is a lot closer to “near 50” than to “near 25.”
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Dec 31, 2009 11:39 AM PST up reply actions
Yes, but thats because we should win around 38 games with this roster.
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
by monta.da.boss on Dec 31, 2009 12:18 PM PST up reply actions
That’s not really “a lot closer,” is it. Where did you get your number?
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Jan 1, 2010 11:43 PM PST up reply actions
I said what number is barely closer to 50 than 25
and 38 was perfect. :=)
Nah, i have no idea what this roster can do. I don’t think anyone can predict what will happen in the next year.
Yes, my main problem with Nelson is not he doesn’t play Randolph, it’s just who he preffered over Randolph the last 2 years. Corey Maggette and Stephen Jackson took up way too many of his minutes. If more were allotted toward Turiaf, Wright, or Rad i wouldn’t be against, but CM and SJ had no right playing more than 2-3 minutes a game max, playing there.
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
by monta.da.boss on Jan 2, 2010 1:14 AM PST up reply actions
I think there is an easy rotation solution
Curry / Watson
Ellis / Morrow
Maggette / Radmanovic
Randolph / Turiaf / Radmanovic
Biedrins / Turiaf
Those nine guys are who you go to bat with. First guard off the bench should be Morrow, with either Monta sitting or sliding to PG depending on how things go (early matchups, foul issues). Next man off the bench should be Turiaf for either Randolph or Biedrins, dependings on how things go (early matchups, foul issues). Radmanovic and Morrow come in to give a scoring/shooting punch at times. Watson should be getting the least amount of playing time amongst these nine players. A tenth can be introduced for spot minutes (Moore, when he’s healthy, is the best option, but I’m really not too concerned either way).
Lastly, when Wright comes back, you NEVER play Radman at the 4. That’s a disservice to the two players you’re supposed to be developing there, Randolph and Wright.
Monta isn’t coming out of the game so whens Morrow going to find minutes.
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
by monta.da.boss on Dec 31, 2009 7:41 PM PST up reply actions
Slide Monta over
Morrow then plays the 2 .. Curry comes out.
I mean, on paper, it just looks so simple.
Curry / Watson
Ellis / Morrow
Maggette / Radmanovic
Randolph / Turiaf / Radmanovic
Biedrins / Turiaf
So the obvious question is: Why doesn’t this happen? The easy answer is the injury problems on the front line, and this is legit, but there is more here. The more difficult answer is Nellie and his bizarre lineups and substitution patterns (or lack thereof).
Step back for a second, and let’s think about Nellie’s substitution pattern in general. It might be good to compare the Warriors to another team with a similar record and offensive minded coach. I was home for the holidays, so I caught a few 76ers games. Their coach, Eddie Jordan, is frequently criticized, and of course, the 76ers don’t have a great record (9-23). The Sixers start Lou Williams/Iverson/Iguodala/Thaddeus Young/Dalembert. Recently, two of the sixers’ most productive players have been Elton Brand and Marreese Speights. Neither starts. Jordan keeps the same starting lineup in the 3rd quarter. Brand and Speights see the majority of their playing time in the 2nd and 4th quarters. Jordan makes a concerted effort to get his deeper bench players (Jason Smith, Royal Ivey, Rodney Carney) into most games, even if only for 5-7 minutes.
Nellie, meanwhile, approaches his lineups completely differently. He juggles his starting lineup (based on match-ups, health, and recent performance, I presume). He doesn’t have a set “first guy off the bench” because he has so many starting lineups. He says he likes to use Maggette as the “super-sub,” but then starts him for stretches of games, and then sends him back to the bench. Players come in during the second quarter (Randolph and Wright, most notably), and then never see the court again. This is all happening while certain players (Baron, Jax, and now Monta) play excessive minutes. And his crunch-time lineups often make little logical or formulaic sense, and often bear little resemblance to the most effective lineup.
(Note: I want to make it clear that I am not arguing for Eddie Jordan for coach, nor am I stating any opinion with regard to his coaching or substitution pattern. I am just illustrating a coaching system with a more classical substitution pattern, one where most players know when and how much they will play.)
W/o Biedrins and Turiaf, Nellie’s job is tough: he is forced to play a smaller lineup, and he responded in typical fashion, going uber-small with Ellis/Curry/Watson/Morrow/Maggette. This just won’t be effective against most teams. Unfortunately, the stubborn one absolutely refused to try Ellis/Maggette/VladRad/Randolph/Moore or Curry/Morrow/Maggette/Randolph/Moore. Clearly, against certain teams, the “biggest lineup possible” is the only answer.
With the big men returning, Nellie’s job appears to get much easier. Pree’s depth chart has to be the only answer, but Nellie will find a way to still play 3 PG’s at the same time, he will still yank AR whenever he makes a mistake, he will still play Ellis 45+ Min, he will still “go small,” whether the situation calls for it or not, and the W’s will continue to play sub-.500 ball.
by UncleCliffy on Jan 1, 2010 5:05 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
Players come in during the second quarter (Randolph and Wright, most notably), and then never see the court again. This is all happening while certain players (Baron, Jax, and now Monta) play excessive minutes. And his crunch-time lineups often make little logical or formulaic sense, and often bear little resemblance to the most effective lineup.
I agree completely but scratch Monta off that list. He actually needs to be on the court as much as possible.
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
by monta.da.boss on Jan 1, 2010 5:54 PM PST up reply actions
I HATE this argument
This is so counter-intuitive. It is just common sense to get all players, especially those coming off of injury, plenty of rest. Playing anyone for 42+ min/game is ridiculous on so many levels. I mean, shouldn’t LeBron play 48 min/game? Do the Cavs have someone better to substitute?
Absolutely correct
Nellie’s got his own thang. It’s a thang that is hard to understand for sure.
Let’s see what he does with some “health” .. although, without Kelenna Azubuike, I can’t say this team is all that healthy since Nellie is super in love with him and to some extents can’t be comfortable without him.
perceptions & motivation
With all due respect, imo the Warriors do not have near 50 win talent and regardless of whether they have a healthy squad, competing with elite teams at the O isn’t altogether unusual – particularly when they are missing stars (PP in the case of Celtices). Nor is it unusual if teams take GS likely with their record only to have to “turn it on” as Kobe did in order to secure a victory.
Nelson is absolutely trying to win – if there was a way playing more of AR would help him pass Lenny W’s on the all time Wins list vs. Lakers he’d’ve tried it.
All that said, I completely agree on your two main points – AR needs more PT and Nelson needs to go (as much as that pains some of us).
Nellie does need to go
but if Smart replaces him, thats completely pointless.
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
I really like this website. A LOT of intelligent comments.
One thing I see repeated a lot is that the Warriors have no chance of making the playoffs. Well, if they played in the JV (Eastern) Conference, they would have a damn good chance. Take a look at the 8th place team over there, Chicago. As of today they are 13-16 with most of their games played against other JV-quality teams. A healthy Warriors squad would win better than 60% of the time over there. As would Oklahoma City, the Clippers, Memphis and Sacramento. By the way, those 4 teams have made significant improvements in their records over last year, while the Warriors haven’t, but I think you can lay all that improvement on having rosters that have improved health over last year and maybe just one other factor—added a key player, a year’s experience and so forth. And all that can be said about the Warriors, but thus far they have been derailed by injuries.
In other words, the West is loaded, with 14 of 16 teams that would make the playoffs in the East.
And it will continue to be that way for a long, long time by the way the lottery is set up. To use just one example, a 48 win team landed Anthony Randolph with the 14th and last lottery pick while the 15th pick went to an eastern team with maybe 38 wins most of which came from beating other inferior teams (Phoenix ended up with the pick through trade, if memory serves) which was Robin Lopez, a significant drop off. So the better (Western) team got better and the worse didn’t have that opportunity.
So if your criticism of not making the playoffs means not being one of the top eight teams in the West, well OK I understand that. If it means something else, I beg to differ.
If last night’s loss doesn’t end this debate, I don’t know what will. I’d love to hear people explain why Anthony Randolph isn’t yet ready to defend Martell Webster.
Ladies and gentlemen, your Golden State Worriers.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
"UNSTOPPABLE BABY!"
Golden State Warriors rookie Marc Jackson to the Mavericks' bench, after hitting a lay-up during a 29-point loss (2000)
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Featured Stories
Most Commented
In Association With
Ball Don't Lie - NBA - Yahoo! Sport
- Days of NBA Lives: Wherein Roy Hibbert tap-dances to Maine
- Grizzlies Valentine’s Day cards are the key to love
- Kevin Love would like the NBA to take the MLB’s approach on All-Star games
- Kobe Bryant fires a few hilarious salvos at Jeremy Lin
- Brandon Jennings states the obvious regarding his 2014 free agency, everyone goes nuts
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
