Mikki, Mikki, Mikki
by onlxn on Dec 9, 2009 2:09 AM PST
93 comments
I've already bitched about this, here and elsewhere. And I get that our top two centers are hurt, and that there may be good reasons for being conservative with Randolph, and that starting Chris Hunter would probably be a little hasty. I get that Mikki doesn't play as much as the phrase "starting center" suggests, and that every team has to give a bad player 15-20 minutes now and again. I even get that he's a nice guy who's playing hurt, and that he's trying to help us, and that he's taken Hunter under his wing. I get all that, I really do.
But holy hell, Mikki Moore is killing us. Let's sift through the wreckage here.
We'll start with the obvious: Mikki can't score. He averages 11.8 points per 48 minutes, a tiny number -- he's tied for 35th out of 43 NBA centers who've played significant minutes, and if you correct for our fast pace, he's more like 38th. Still, he shoots well when he shoots (.569 from the field), and he passes pretty decently for a center (third among centers in assists per 48 and A/TO, though nobody's setting the world on fire in either category)... at least Mikki plays within his limits on offense. Besides, a number of good players -- Jason Kidd, Anderson Varejao, Chuck Hayes, Thabo Sefalosha -- score as rarely as he does. You can still be a useful player if you do other things really well. Does Mikki do anything really well?
Well, he sure doesn't rebound. Eighty players who ESPN lists as centers have taken the court for NBA teams this year. By rebounds per minute, Mikki is the 73rd-best rebounder of those eighty, and of the seven who are worse, only three have played for more than half an hour total. He would rank 71st out of 90 amongst power forwards; he would rank 24th out of 66, only slightly above average, amongst small forwards. Again, these rankings don't correct for pace... if anything, they overstate his contributions. So he doesn't score, doesn't rebound. What else do we got? Defense, mebbe?
Mikki rates a little better in shot-blocking, but only a little... 61st among centers, by ESPN's reckoning. Steals? 58th among centers, again significantly below average. Blocks and steals don't necessarily equate with good defense, of course... a tight man defender can shut down an opponent in ways that don't show up on the traditional stat sheet. But looking deeper, this explanation doesn't seem to apply to Mikki. Per 82games.com (whose numbers are a couple days out of date), through our first 18 games, our opponents shot significantly better (55.8% to 53.3%) and scored more efficiently overall when Mikki was on the floor. All the evidence, statistical, anecdotal and otherwise, suggests that Mikki makes our defense a good bit worse.
"Okay, so Mikki doesn't score, rebound or defend. He at least doesn't foul much, right? After all, if you never do anything, you're not going to trigger many whistles." If you're Mikki Moore, you are! Mikki ranks 10th in the league in fouls per minute amongst guys who've played a significant amount.
"Well, maybe Mikki returns the favor. Maybe he gets to the line a lot himself. That could balance out all the opponents he sends to the line." No. Dear God, no. Mikki has played 321 minutes... in that time, he has earned a tolal of nine free throws, of which he has made five. Let's be clear on this point: in almost seven full games of basketball, he has netted us five points from the line. Fifteen NBA players give their teams more points from the line per game than Mikki has given us all season. He doesn't score, or defend, or rebound, or draw fouls, or avoid fouls... he may very possibly be the worst player in all of basketball.
The upshot of all of this, most insane and chilling stat of all? Here ya go. We have played Mikki-free lineups in 66.5% of our minutes, just under two-thirds of the time. In that time -- the majority of our minutes so far, encompassing Jack drama and smallness and shorthandedness and all of it -- we get outscored by 0.6 points per 48 minutes. That's not ideal, but it's not terrible, either... a team with that point differential would be expected to go something like 39-43. When Mikki's in? We get outscored by 13.6 points per 48 minutes. That is terrible. No NBA team has ever been outscored by that much over the course of a season... a team with that point differential would be expected to go something like -- no joke -- 4-78. Sans Mikki, we're close to being a .500 team. With Mikki, we're the worst team in the history of basketball by a country mile.
This franchise needs a lot of things. A coaching change would help. A new defensive philosophy would help. Shooting more threes, as I rambled about yesterday, would help. But the easiest change of all is obvious -- it lies in a single conversation that starts like this: "Mikki, we couldn't help but notice that you've been playing in pain. Go ahead and have that surgery you were considering." If we get Mikki off the court, we will have a dramatically better chance of winning every night. There's just no good reason to deny ourselves that chance.
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!
11 recs |
93 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
well at least now we know how to go about tanking, just put Mikki in!
Thing A
by sam23 on Dec 9, 2009 2:50 AM PST reply actions 1 recs
Yeah excellent post...
I cant stand two players on the warriors and its him and Maggette. I have been trying to think of a trade partner for Maggette and only one I could think of and that was the Knicks. The trade would be Maggette, Mikki, Bell and Claxton for Wilson Chandler, Jared Jeffries, and Eddy Curry. I was thinking about writing a fan post on it, why each team would do it. Of course I was also thinking about it when Mikki could finally be traded. By the way if it did happen, it would be awesome to see Mikki play next to Jordan Hill.
I dont get what all the bitching is about
We’re talking about a 3rd string (at best) center that was really brought in to teach our bigs some D and help in scrimmages and now he’s been forced into action.
If we can keep Hunter you will see him getting more min’s as he starts to get the plays and players. (I would hope).
Mikki is Mikki, we knew what we were getting when we signed him.
This house is full of m, m, madness!
This house is full of m, m, mistakes!
If we knew we were getting this when we signed him (and this is pretty much exactly what I thought we’d get if we had to play him) that begs the question: why did we sign him? Wasn’t there a warm body in the D-league who we could demo instead? (I heard that there was a guy named Hunter or something that had some good hustle and could provide some strength under the rim).
by jae on Dec 9, 2009 9:10 AM PST up reply actions
i can teahc mikki some d
are you kidding, he is the worst defensive player ever, we don’t need him to teach that. in fact bad d is already contagious on this team, we need to keep mikki off the court.
Give Mikki a break
I can’t believe someone devoted this much energy to Moore.
he is not the reason we suck. we suck because we turn the ball over too much, we don’t know how to close out games and we lack depth. Moore may not be the solution but he isn’t the problem.
He is playing hard with the minimal athleticism and talent he has and has a great attitude. he knows more than AR about post positioning and man defense which is why he plays more than he would on most teams. He gets screwed on a lot of foul call imo.
Besides, with Biedrins on the way back and turiaf getting healthy you will see less of Mikki soon enough.
he is not the reason we suck. we suck because we turn the ball over too much, we don’t know how to close out games and we lack depth. Moore may not be the solution but he isn’t the problem.
If Moore is playing and doing nothing, he is part of the problem. Should he be? Should he be playing? No, but that doesn’t somehow make what he’s doing (or more to the point, not doing) less detrimental.
by jae on Dec 9, 2009 9:06 AM PST up reply actions
we suck because we turn the ball over too much, we don’t know how to close out games and we lack depth. Moore may not be the solution but he isn’t the problem.
Mikki is by no means the only reason we suck, but to say he’s not the problem is to ignore all the evidence at hand. He makes our offense worse, he makes our defense worse, and he loses us the fouls battle with alarming speed. When he’s not playing, we take more free throws than our opponents — 29 to 27, per 48 minutes. When he plays, our opponents take more free throws than us — 30 to 18, per 48 minutes. You can’t compete with a deficit like that.
He is playing hard with the minimal athleticism and talent he has and has a great attitude.
I completely agree. But, I mean, I play hard and can muster up a pretty good attitude… that doesn’t mean I should play over Anthony Randolph.
he knows more than AR about post positioning and man defense which is why he plays more than he would on most teams.
He may know more, but he’s not converting that knowledge into anything useful on the court. 82games.com records how a guy’s individual opponents fare against him; they don’t always align the matchups correctly, but as we’ve usually only had one big out there, they’ve probably got our big guys pegged about right. The guys Mikki covers average 18.8 points on 12.7 shots with 10.9 rebounds per 36; the guys Randolph covers when he plays the five average 17.4 points on 11.8 shots with 11.1 rebounds per 36 — not much difference. The main gap is that Mikki’s opponents record an assist about twice as often as Randolph’s; on the whole, Mikki’s opponents play a bit better than Randolph’s. Randolph’s man defense as a center rates better than Mikki’s. And that’s just man defense. When it comes to help defense (and rebounding, and offense), Randolph is obviously better by leaps and bounds.
This is what many fans, and the Warriors themselves, don’t seem to realize. If Mikki actually was playing semi-competent defense — if he was even playing as well as, say, Kwame Brown — we’d be doing a lot better than we are. But he’s not using veteran savvy or solid positioning or anything. The guys he covers score with efficiency and ease, and everyone else blows right by him to the hoop… the only thing he does is smack a dude every six minutes or so. God bless the guy, but he’s not doing anything right. He’s a huge, huge problem.
Ladies and gentlemen, your Golden State Worriers.
by onlxn on Dec 9, 2009 9:14 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I think we can all nod in agreement that Mikki Moore is not good for us in heavy doses. But did anybody really have any lofty expectations from the guy?
At the time we signed him, he was to be our 5th ranked big on the depth chart. Now, with the addition of Radman, he’s the 6th ranked big on the depth chart. It’s only because of multiple injuries and flawed coaching that he’s getting so much playing time.
I can’t think of any “6th bigs” in the league who bring alot more to the table than Mikki Moore. He’s an experienced, lengthy, good-sized veteran making NBA chump change. He’s a good body to have on the practice court and he has to have at least some good knowledge of the game to spread to the youngsters. What more can you realistically ask from a 6th big?
As far as I know, he hasn’t been going around demanding minutes. Our coaching staff’s stubborn affinity for over-playing veterans is to blame for Mikki Moore’s increase in minutes, not Mikki Moore.
"We Deserve"
by YaHeard on Dec 9, 2009 9:20 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Isn’t this where someone is supposed to say that stats can’t tell you anything? Cite Moore’s “intangibles?”
by jae on Dec 9, 2009 9:07 AM PST reply actions 1 recs
lulz
Those “intangibles” sure show up in his plus/minus:
-9.89 net
-7.36 adj
For even more fun, when playing with Curry, Ellis, Vlad, and Morrow (per 100 possessions):
Moore: 69 minutes, -13.68
Randolph: 39 minutes, +50.62
I think we can draw our own conclusions on how awesome Moore is.
saucer of milk for table 1
"Better a Has-been than a Never-was. But better a Never-was than a Never-tried-to-be"
by BritWarriorGSW on Dec 9, 2009 9:36 AM PST up reply actions
Since mikki has started...
he’s gone over 30 minutes ONCE and bulk of time capped at about 20. Averaging 17 mpg. The reason he starts (IMO ) is to keep Randolph out of foul trouble. Buy early minutes when a lot of ticcy tack fouls happen.
As soon as biedrins gets healthy he’ll see his minutes majorly and when beans and turiaf are back, i doubt we’ll see him other than in instances of foul trouble
I think (and hope) you’re right, but I’m a little leery of the Biedrins situation… there’s something fishy about the vagueness of the health updates on him. I’m worried that he’s not as close as people are claiming, and my guess is that he won’t play on this road trip. We shall see.
Ladies and gentlemen, your Golden State Worriers.
I think it's still 2 weeks
I wouldn’t be surprised if we didn’t see him till Jan 1. This injury apparently happened w/ international duty. Back situations are bad. Last thing we need is him to play 2 games and bump up and miss another month plus……
The last Biedrins update from yesterday
Biedrins is four weeks into a four- to six-week rehab for groin and abdominal strains and is still working on the side during Warriors’ practices.
Notes: Center Ronny Turiaf had his left knee checked out Tuesday by Dr. David Altchek in New York. He was cleared to increase his level of activity. The Warriors are targeting a return for Turiaf two weeks from now. … Center Andris Biedrins is also about two weeks from coming back. He is in week five of his recovery from osteitis pubis, a strain of the muscles that connect the groin and abdomen. According to the Warriors, that injury takes a maximum of six weeks from which to recover. A team official said Biedrins is making progress and is increasing his basketball and fitness activities. … After practice Tuesday, the team met with Billy Hunter, executive director of the NBA Players Association, about various financial matters.
by homer simpson on Dec 9, 2009 10:37 AM PST up reply actions
Oy. It’s going to be a pretty bad Christmas.
Ladies and gentlemen, your Golden State Worriers.
you could argue this in Nellie’s case.
since Hunter joined the team, Nellie has Mikki averaging 8 minutes a game (mostly he starts, plays his minutes and never comes back in), but Smart has him playing more than his avg of 17 min per game (Smart has played Mikki an average of 20 minutes per game).
by homer simpson on Dec 9, 2009 10:35 AM PST up reply actions
It’s true… Nellie has quickly lost interest in Mikki the last couple of times he’s coached this team, which makes it all the stranger that Mikki keeps getting to start. I don’t know if it’s wanting to keep Randolph out of foul trouble so much as the coaching coalition’s stated reason, that Randolph has a better chance of success against backups. (That idea is often absurd in practice, as in OKC on Monday… if Randolph was going to have trouble defending a Thunder five, it was clearly Collison, not Krstic.)
Ladies and gentlemen, your Golden State Worriers.
and this whole time I believed Coach Smart was going to be our savior.
I don’t believe in Santa Claus anymore…
"We Deserve"
“You can always go to the well,” assistant coach Keith Smart said of Moore. “I’ve known him for a long time. He played for me (in the CBA). I kind of trust what he does. I know who he is. One thing I have always liked about him, and on our team in particular: He’s vocal. He’s loud early, and he’s loud often. And that helps the team because we’ve got a lot of quiet guys.”
here’s the explanation for Smart’s irrational love of Mikki. i wonder if he was picked up on Smart’s recommendation?
by homer simpson on Dec 9, 2009 10:10 PM PST up reply actions
I suspected that the “known quantity” issue had a bunch to do with things. Coaches don’t like unpredictable. Sounds like Smart would rather have a guy who does what he expects of his player in terms of being where he wants him to be, reacting the way he wants him to to the point of completely ignoring that he can do this while still being near totally ineffective.
Speaking of Biedrins
Is he wearing the same clothes to every game lately? Or does he own stock in a cheesy jeans company?
I can't wait to see Biedrins and Turiaf back in uniform
I watch all the games with a few buddies, they are always talking about how the Warriors suck and its depressing to even watch them, especially when they show glimpses of hope, only to fall flat on their face. I have to keep reminding them, with the amount of injuries we have, NO TEAM could be succesful. I was explaining to a laker fan, if the Lakers lost Bynum, Gasol, Odom, and Artest, and were stuck trotting out a starting lineup that included DJ Mbenga and Sasha Vujacic, even with Kobe out there they would have a hard time winning games. So my point is, I know it hurts watching Mikki Moore play out there, he is suprisingly worse than I thought he could be, but bearing in mind all of the injuries we have, we should take away the silver lining that a lot of young guys are getting great experience and we will get a high draft pick even though I believe we are a better team than that.
At least Mbenga’s funny looking so I can laugh a bit while the Warriors are losing…
by Missing Barry on Dec 9, 2009 1:07 PM PST up reply actions
Rec...
It’s clear that Mikki sucks, but it’s actually scarier than I thought now that you’ve quantified how bad he actually is. But looking on the bright side I hear he has a really cool snake collection, so… um… yeah.
"I could be chasing an untamed ornithoid without cause."
is it just snakes? I heard he was a reptile connosieur
Sittin in my scraper watchin Oakland goin wild, ta-dow!
It’s clear that Mikki sucks, but it’s actually scarier than I thought now that you’ve quantified how bad he actually is
same here
In that time — the majority of our minutes so far, encompassing Jack drama and smallness and shorthandedness and all of it — we get outscored by 0.6 points per 48 minutes. That’s not ideal, but it’s not terrible, either… a team with that point differential would be expected to go something like 39-43. When Mikki’s in? We get outscored by 13.6 points per 48 minutes.
i knew Mikki is bad -but i didn’t knew he is 13 points bad
31 Y 6.5 ft 250 lbs 0 IQ
Fire Nellie! Fire Cohan! Fire Gregory! Fire David Stern! No need for explanations, just fire em all!
by Missing Barry
by Lat We N Trash on Dec 9, 2009 1:53 PM PST up reply actions
Hate Moore as a starter but not as a 3rd string
He’s obviously not a starter, it should get back to normal in a week or so when Biedrins and Turiaf come back from injuries but then again you never know with this management. I also don’t understand why Radman is starting at PF over Randolph, I mean now that we have hunter to be the backup C to Moore, why not slide Randolph back to his normal position??? Even worst, when AMMO was out, instead of plugging CJ as a 3 !!! we could have gone a little bigger in starting Radman at the 3 spot and Randolph at the 4. Just my 2 cents…
Here Here
Playing Moore is a sick joke. He’s totally washed up, in every way. Being short handed is not an excuse. Moore isn’t an NBA player, and Keith Dumb should know that.
ES
I heart Mikki Moore!
Ok – maybe not – but I needed to balance out all the over the top unnecessary hating on here. He does the best with what he has. He just has too little.
I’d direct my anger (if I cared to-which I don’t) at guys like AR, who does little, IMO, with what he has because he doesn’t maximize his ability and work is butt off. And being super energized and trying to do the miraculous isn’t how I define working his butt off. His regression hurts the team more than Mikki’s poor numbers.
Or, hate on guys who treat the blessing of being an NBA player as if its a huge hardship. Guys like kelena, CJ, and Mikki are why its easy to root for this team.
Before you respond to my comments above, answer the following:
What should he do – tell the coach NO when told to get in and play?
Hate the coach then, not the player.
guys like AR, who does little, IMO, with what he has because he doesn’t maximize his ability and work is butt off.
All the rage around here in the offseason was that Randolph was working his butt off on his game. I wasn’t there, I can’t say he was for sure, and I realize when columnists have nothing else to write about these things make for an easy story (regardless of how true they are)….but by all accounts, Randolph was working hard….
by Missing Barry on Dec 9, 2009 6:37 PM PST up reply actions
Where's Randolph's 'regression'?
His PER numbers are good, he draws fouls, I fail to see what the problem is. I’m sick of homers defending totally insane coaching decisions.
ES
mikki is not a shaq
where the h*ll is AB..why is he still hurt? tell him to suck it up and play ball or dubz will trade his a$$ lol
DUBfan4life!!!!
I hear you on the no-Mikki-love, we all do. But yesterday I posted an argument that is stat-independent in favor of starting him
It goes something like this:
By playing 8-11 minutes in the start of the game, Mikki is spelling the better players in advance. Randolph, Hunter (when they play him), Rad – these guys just aren’t competitive enough as "bigs," and they can’t last 48 minutes, even with some short breaks. Nellie/Smart need the flexibility to be trying out a 40 minute game, not a 48 minute game, with them. This is much better than, say, Hunter or Randolph picking up the first two fouls (in the opening 4-6 minutes), and trying to "save" him for later in game, playing throughout under foul pressure.
So, Mikki picks up 2-3 fouls in the first quarter, sits down, and Randolph, etc. have a chance to play hard for the remaining 36, starting off foul free. And they can play better because of it.
Ok, I like this argument. (We could probably make the same argument in favor of starting Hunter, I guess I’m not sure why they haven’t.) But I’m not stuck to it, as I make no claim as a great strategist. Let me know what you think!
I see what you're saying
But it seems like the coaching staff is making things more complicated than they need to be. I don’t see any other teams taking this approach with their bigs. Sooner or later, Randolph is going to have to learn how to be a starter and not pick up quick fouls anyway (not that I’ve really see him having a problem with that anyway, his foul rate isn’t atrocious.)
I think we should be trying to maximize minutes for Randolph and Radman and minimize minutes for Mikki Moore. Giving him the start and the complimentary 8-11 minutes in the beginning usually puts us in a hole early. Moore is a backup, and that’s exactly what he should be doing: backing up our better players when they get tired or pick up fouls. This over-cautiousness is actually self-defeating.
"We Deserve"
Yes, I worry, too, about the self-defeating aspect, too often we're going down early when perhaps we don't need to.
Still, I’ve always been annoyed by watching games where a guy pulls two fouls in the first quarter and his game is stymied the rest of the way. Even if he is getting spelled for a while, he comes back out in the second qtr., picks up another cheapie, sits back down. You know the drill, right? We saw it playing against Howard the other night! But if Randolph picks up two in the second after sitting the first, he’s still good to go, can play hard, never has to feel a monkey on his back.
I’m not sure (and this relates to the poster down below, too), that Randolph is ready yet for playing 35 minutes/game. I think he will be soon, and that the restraint (which is nothing like last year’s restraint – ugh) is helping him, not hurting him.
I hear you on Radman, too. I haven’t developed a firm opinion on his stregths and abilities yet, and I admit I have no idea what his role looks like when Biedrins is back, and Randolph starts getting more minutes.
Except Mikki is averaging close to 21 minutes under Smart. Apparently he coached him in the CBA and has a soft spot for him.
by homer simpson on Dec 9, 2009 10:14 PM PST up reply actions
When he got signed in the offseason, you knew this was going to happen
I had a strong feeling that Moore was going to stand in the way of Randolph’s minutes this year, and that is exactly what is happening. Although I’m a big Randolph fan, I’m really just a fan of playing the youth at this point. And Nellie has proven that he is willing to play worse players (e.g. Kurz, Moore) ahead of his more talented players (Randolph) in order to “teach” them.
I just really hope that Randolph continues to play well so that there will be a little more of a public outcry about Moore getting minutes over him. People on this site seem pretty fickle in their support of Randolph (only advocate playing him when he is playing well.)
My question for you is this: what do we have to lose by playing Randolph 30+ minutes a night? We aren’t going to the playoffs, so more losses only means a higher draft slot.
by randolphforpresident on Dec 9, 2009 9:27 PM PST reply actions
People on this site seem pretty fickle in their support of Randolph (only advocate playing him when he is playing well.)
Makes sense to me. I also only advocate listening to music that sounds good, so maybe I’m just weird?
what do we have to lose by playing Randolph 30+ minutes a night? We aren’t going to the playoffs, so more losses only means a higher draft slot.
It’s December. The Nets are still trying, so hell no, we’re not going to tank.
An empty barrel makes the most noise.
The idea that playing Anthony Randolph over Mikki Moore would constitute “tanking” is about the most laughable thing I’ve ever heard. If we’re really concerned about making the playoffs this year, we should be playing Randolph 30+ minutes a night… Randolph at his spazziest and stupidest is more useful than Mikki.
Ladies and gentlemen, your Golden State Worriers.
I was responding to the previous gentleman (or lady)’s insinuation that playing Randolph=losing but we should do it anyway. If we sit AR to make a point we should play Hunter, not Moore.
An empty barrel makes the most noise.
Let me clarify. I personally feel like Randolph gives us a better chance to win out there than Moore, night in a night out. However, some people claim that Randolph’s “out of control” play will lose us games if we give him 30+ minutes a night. To people who feel this way, I’m saying: so what. One of our highest priorities has to be Randolph’s development.
by randolphforpresident on Dec 10, 2009 10:49 AM PST up reply actions
Don Nelson would disagree
He has the All-Time Wins record to get. That’s probably more important than Randolph’s development, in his mind.
"We Deserve"
except since the trade for Vlad, Randolph’s played 28+ min for Nellie. problem is that he’s barely played 20 min under Smart. even though Nellie barely played him in the beginning, he’s still averaged almost 23 min under Nellie. the problem seems to be more that they don’t trust Randolph to be where he’s supposed to be offensively (for Nellie) & defensively (for Smart).
btw. development happens in the offseason. what Randolph is missing out on is gaining experience.
by homer simpson on Dec 13, 2009 10:33 AM PST up reply actions
My question for you is this: what do we have to lose by playing Randolph 30+ minutes a night?
reinforcing bad habits in a young player would be a pretty big loss for both the warriors and randolph himself. using playing time as a reward doesn’t seem to be a bad plan to me.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
Here’s the thing: Randolph has been playing well. He hasn’t been blowing assignments on offense, he’s made fewer mistakes on defense than any other frontcourt player except Hunter. He’s even passing well. He misses his share of jumpers, sure, but let’s remember, Nellie wants him shooting jumpers, to draw opposing centers away from the rim.
Randolph has been a good soldier and an effective player for awhile now, with his freakouts of the first couple games far behind him. Hell, according to Basketball Prospectus’s numbers, Randolph’s actually been our best player so far. How much better and more mistake-free are we demanding he be to merit a start?
I have defended Nellie’s handling on Randolph, but at a certain point, enough is enough. He’s playing well and under control. He came back from a family emergency today and blew everyone else off the floor. What more is he supposed to do?
Ladies and gentlemen, your Golden State Worriers.
One thing that annoys me about Randolph is his poor screen-setting skills. He rarely, at least when I’m paying attention, gets Monta’s man good with a screen. Monta really needs that solid screen- it’s the difference between an open jumper/drive against a big- and going 1 on 3 with Randolph hopelessly following behind. Hunter’s also no good on screens, being new. I think Mikki might be decent, which could partially explain the start/minutes.
If I really wanted to win a game, I’d hit the opposing guards early with hard screens. Setting screens, I think, is a really underrated skill to most fans. After all, the pick and roll is the go-to play for almost every team for a reason.
An empty barrel makes the most noise.
even more
considering pick and roll is played more often these days than 5 years ago
i really want see Biedrins back soon -his screens are combination of great timing and good position
31 Y 6.5 ft 250 lbs 0 IQ
Fire Nellie! Fire Cohan! Fire Gregory! Fire David Stern! No need for explanations, just fire em all!
by Missing Barry
by Lat We N Trash on Dec 10, 2009 1:44 AM PST up reply actions
I disagree entirely. There’s really not that much to setting a good screen other than holding your ground. It’s Monta’s responsibility to run his guy into Randolph, not Randolph’s responsibility to hit the guy. In fact, earlier in the season (this is something we’ve much improved upon since then), it was very apparent why this is – Monta kept taking off before the screen was in place causing our big guys to set a moving screen and get an offensive foul called.
All the big man needs to do is hold his ground and read the defense properly for the angle he should roll at or if he can slip the screen.
Off ball screens are a little different, I would be more inclined to agree with you there, since you can get away with a lot more movement/contact….
by Missing Barry on Dec 10, 2009 10:09 AM PST up reply actions
this is a great point
my coaches have always taught us that the screener holds his ground, and the guy with the ball (or even off-ball screens) aims for shoulder-brushing.
he’s definitely been playing better as the year has progressed. now, there’s the ankle to worry about, but that doesn’t seem to be bothering him much. at this point, it would certainly be fair to call for more randolph minutes. my point is that 30+ minutes, night in night out isn’t the way to get the most out of him. i have no problem with not guaranteeing randolph minutes. let him earn it and, right now, he is.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
He hasn’t been blowing assignments on offense, he’s made fewer mistakes on defense than any other frontcourt player except Hunter.
i surmise that this statement is not true. most coaches tend to play the players they trust. the players who are where they are supposed to be on offense & defense and who follow the game plan precisely. hence why Phil plays Fisher over Shannon Brown or Odom over Bynum. It’s obvious Smart trust Mikki Moore & Vlad more than he trusts AR & Hunter.blockquote>What more is he supposed to do?according to Monta? watch more film.
by homer simpson on Dec 13, 2009 11:02 AM PST up reply actions
i surmise that this statement is not true. most coaches tend to play the players they trust. the players who are where they are supposed to be on offense & defense and who follow the game plan precisely.
Well, I’ll grant you that Randolph is probably not in the right place on offense as consistently as Mikki, and possibly even Vlad. Mikki does seem to be where he’s supposed to be on offense; he can’t do very much wherever he is, but he does get to the right place. Randolph hasn’t seemed actively out of sync on offense for about a month now, but there have been moments in recent games where he missed clear opportunities to cut to the hoop without the ball, etc. So I can buy that the vets are more reliable offensive commodities than Randolph.
Defensively, I don’t see the case for it. Both Mikki and Vlad have been horrible, making dozens of basic defensive mistakes a night: making no effort to seal off the post, losing their men, fouling early in shot clocks. Randolph has made some mistakes too, but not nearly as many. My sense is that both Smart and Nellie want guys who will do what they’re told on offense, and that both basically throw up their hands when it comes to D.
hence why Phil plays Fisher over Shannon Brown or Odom over Bynum.
Both of these examples actually highlight the foolishness of the Warriors.
Derek Fisher has been a better player than Shannon Brown in every season since Brown joined the league. Not by much, as Fish is pretty over the hill at this point, but he’s been the better player; his defensive results are still good. Still, when Fisher slumped horribly last year, Phil didn’t hesitate to cut his minutes and up Brown’s. Brown got a bigger chance as soon as he started outplaying Fish by even a little bit; since, he has stopped outplaying Fisher, and his minutes have dropped again. At no point was Shannon Brown as much of an improvement on Derek Fisher as Randolph would be on Mikki or Vlad, and yet Phil went to this newcomer as soon as his production merited it, in truly critical situations, to boot. Randolph can’t get a starting nod on a pointless December weeknight in New Jersey.
Bynum, meanwhile, is playing more minutes than Odom is; the return of Pau has cut into Odom’s minutes more than Bynum’s. Who make more mistakes between the two? Bynum; he’s the younger player. But he produces more and does more to help them win, so Phil has put him ahead of Odom in line.
I agree that coaches tend to play the players they trust. But who would you rather trust, a low-mistakes guy who helps you a little, or a high-mistakes guy who helps you a lot? The good coaches in the league tend to value production over precision; they’re happy to accept a few mistakes if it helps their team win. We’re a crappy team in the middle of a lost season, and we have a young player who’s 1) performing extremely well for his age, and 2) not making many more mistakes than the crappy vets who start over him. At what point does that stop making sense? At what point does Randolph wonder he’s the only guy who gets benched for mistakes?
What more is he supposed to do? according to Monta? watch more film.
Monta might want to join Randolph in that viewing session. Nobody’s made more boneheaded offensive decisions, or hurt us more at that end, than Monta.
Ladies and gentlemen, your Golden State Worriers.
preaching to the choir.
making no effort to seal off the post, losing their men, fouling early in shot clocks.
yeah & Mikki’s always blaming his teammates. but I meant things like being where they are supposed to be (which Smart seems to love about Maggette despite the fact that even when he’s there he still gets burned b/c he either flops or guys shoot over the top of him) & following the game plan. and i’m convinced that over rotating irks Nellie (Turiaf & AR).
but it wasn’t always the case with Phil & Bynum. In Bynum’s 2nd yr, Phil used to play Kwame Brown 27.6 min a game vs Bynum at 21.9 mpg. also to clarify i meant last yr Phil would bench Bynum for Odom in the 4th no matter how well Bynum was playing & how non-existent Odom was b/c he trusted Odom more.
and in 07-08, based on stats, Farmar (yr 2) outplayed Fisher that season, but Phil stuck with Fisher for 27.4 mpg vs Farmar 20.6. and to clarify on the above, Phil stuck with Fisher in the playoffs despite how atrocious he was. people talk about the game winners, but if Phil had switched to Brown (hell, even Farmar was better in the postseason) they wouldn’t have needed it. PER is flawed b/c of it’s emphasis on usage, but when your PER is 8.5, that can’t be good. yet Fisher played more than Brown & Farmar combined (and by well over 100 minutes).
by homer simpson on Dec 16, 2009 12:18 PM PST up reply actions
Nothing to do
but rec this thread. Mad props, as always, onixn, for once again providing incredibly useful, in-depth, and well researched stats.
People who keep complaining about GSoM mods and trolling with pointless posts are the Mikki Moores of Golden State of Mind. But you are the Monta Ellis (only not tonight. or if tonight, only the fourth quarter).
Had a good game for Mikki...
Mikki must have been reading this post before the game because he had his best game of the year last night…and even a few highlight dunks!! Yes I said a few highlight dunks…LOL
God Willing...
i’ll admit Mikki isn’t great by any stretch of the imagination…but some of the numbers (such as comparing him to the rest of the centers in the league) is not exactly reasonable. point of fact is he ISNT a center. he’s just having to play it like the rest of our 4’s since both of our 5’s are hurt. so obviously he is going to look worse than normal having to play a position he isnt sized or skilled for. not that he is a great 4 either…but at least he is servicable to kill some minutes to spell some guys of rest at 4.
that being said, i do think that chris hunter needs a lot more playing time at this point. he is a better option at the 5 than we have at the moment. although he has made some rookie mistakes he is more sound on both ends of the floor as a 5 than any of the other “bigs” we have in the lineup at the moment.
Mikki Moore not a center? On what planet? Not sized? He’s 7 feet tall. Not skilled? Yea sure but it’s not like he has PF skills hiding in his backpocket that he can’t use because he is forced to play out of position. He can’t dribble or even catch a pass at his chest, how is he going to play PF?
Sittin in my scraper watchin Oakland goin wild, ta-dow!
DON'T HATE THE MIKKI
Again- no one here has yet to make it clear why they hate on this guy.
Because he isn’t good? We knew that going in to the season. In my view he plays hard each night. can’t ask for more than that.
Because he gets too many minutes? NOT HIS FAULT! Blame coaches if you feel this way.
Because he is our starting center? I missed the part where he caused the injuries to Beans and Turiaf and gave himself the starting nod.
Once Biedrins and Turiaf are back he won’t play much at all – then we’ll start winning all our games (right?)
At that point, as warrior fans, we should say thank you Mikki for doing the best with what little you have and get cozy on the pine and be a leader in the locker room.
by tjmax on Dec 10, 2009 9:53 AM PST reply actions 1 recs
i think you’re confusing comments like “mikki moore is a bad basketball player, we should play him less” with “i hate mikki moore, he’s a bad person, it’s all his fault”. no one is saying that moore is lobbying for more playing time or should sit himself for being awful, just pointing out that he really is a terrible NBA player. the fact that he is getting minutes is bad for the team. is that his fault? no, but it’s a fair thing to mention.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
you are making my point
I am NOT saying people here are saying he is a bad guy. My examples of people’s criticism was about PT, skills (or the lackof) and starting over AR. I’m saying directing anger at Mikki for not being very good and getting too much playing time is misdirected. I guess it bug me because he seems like a good guy (based on very little info). It isn’t like the hate directed towards Maggette -a guy who makes bad decisions that hurt the team – that ire is more aptly directed.
Leave Mikki alone and hate on the coaches.
So now you’re arguing the hate directed at a productive player who has a couple of very useful skills is worthwhile, but the hate directed at arguably the worst player in the NBA who kills us every time he steps on the floor by being so bad – he’s just there, and that’s all there is to say about his game – is not? In what reality does that make sense?
by Missing Barry on Dec 15, 2009 9:15 PM PST up reply actions
i don’t think anyone is angry at mikki, just the situation. pointing out that he’s a bad basketball player and hurts the team is not “hate”- it’s fact.
and it’s vastly different than what people think about maggs, who helps the team in a way people don’t enjoy and gets booed for it. it’s kind of funny when you think about it, monta, playing a somewhat similar brand of basketball gets a free pass and adoration while being less productive offensively. just sayin’
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
NBATV
Just saw that beans is back in 2 weeks. Mikki is on limited time now.
Rookie: "Why did you bench me?"
Nellie: "You're a rookie"
Mikki is "vocal"
I’ve been hearing this a lot since we got him. He does seem to be pretty vocal and animated both while playing and while on the bench. Keith Smart said after the Nets game that a lot of the players are quiet guys so it’s good to have a vocal guy on the court. I’m not sure exactly why that’s important but from a defensive point of view, it’s important to have someone be vocal to point out where players need to be, calling out screens, and just calling out what’s going on in general. It really makes a big difference when playing.
Now, just being vocal doesn’t make up for being a crappy player, but I don’t think Mikki is THAT bad. He’s a role player and he’s filled a nice little role for us while Beans and Turiaf have been out.
Does that mean if those two were healthy, Mikki would be riding bench? No, I still think he’d get minutes (over Randolph) just because he fills a role better than Randolph does at the moment; Randolph is still trying to find his niche as a starter/star where as Mikki’s niche is being a role player. Meaning, there’s no immediate downside to playing Mikki as a filler. He doesn’t do that many things bad and he doesn’t do that many things bad. That’s important for a young team that needs consistency and stability.
Is he the perfect role player? No. Is he even a center? I’m not sure. But for this team, he’s done alright.
Confident Marco Belinelli supporter
typo
He doesn’t do that many things bad and he doesn’t do that many things good
Confident Marco Belinelli supporter
by Doctor Kajita on Dec 10, 2009 8:56 PM PST up reply actions
i dont hate mikki for the reasons you gave as his upsides
just, if we want to be a good team, he can’t be getting over 5-10 minutes a game.
Marco Belinelli's Biggest Fan
I can’t argue with that, but I think there’s probably a lot more involved in trying to build a good team than just playing our young guys unlimited minutes. I’m not trying to make excuses for the dysfunction that is, but I think there are certain examples you need to set (as a coach) that the young guys need to pick up and/or at least be exposed to. With that being said, 5 – 10 minutes should be a good enough time to set that example when we talk about Mikki Moore.
Confident Marco Belinelli supporter
by Doctor Kajita on Dec 10, 2009 9:41 PM PST up reply actions
u guys need to understand that he is not a 1st-string center.....he's like a 3-rd string center....and for that....he's really not doing that bad
I hate how you guys only talk about the players’ performance ON the court….how come no one says anything about what he does off the court….that’s what i thought
by Morrow is wet!!! on Dec 10, 2009 9:37 PM PST reply actions
I hate how you guys only talk about the players’ performance ON the court….how come no one says anything about what he does off the court….that’s what i thought
I think it’s important, no doubt. But, the off-court stuff is intangible for us fans. We only see the product on the court so we can only use that to make judgments. Smart fans will always consider the intangible variables.
Confident Marco Belinelli supporter
by Doctor Kajita on Dec 10, 2009 9:42 PM PST up reply actions
I hate how you guys only talk about the players’ performance ON the court….how come no one says anything about what he does off the court
Because, frankly, I care about my team winning. Of course I’ll always have a soft spot for someone like Foyle or Manute Bol, but what a player does on the court is like 95% of what I care about.
by Missing Barry on Dec 11, 2009 10:42 AM PST up reply actions
Yes, let us not confuse who we would rather have as a neighbor vs who we would rather have as a center.
I wouldn’t even want Mikki as my neighbor
by Loveisforfree on Dec 12, 2009 2:58 AM PST up reply actions
well.....
only a couple of people agree with me….but the majority don’t
by Morrow is wet!!! on Dec 10, 2009 9:39 PM PST reply actions
Great Post and Great Research
Enough of Mikki. He doesn’t help us today or in the future. The team plays better with Randolph every single night. This is the same thing as last year when Rob Kurz was playing ahead of Randolph. It made no sense. MIkki -16 again tonight and for the posters that said what a great game in New Jersey they were -1 against the Nets. I just want to see Randolph start and play 35 minutes a night to see what he can do. He looked pretty good when he got minutes against Dwight Howard and Orlando.
And Mikki starts again
The only thing more infuriating than his starting is hearing people defend this totally insane lineup.
ES
Gutsy move not to start Brand....our coach doesn't have the guts not to start Moore
Did you hear Smart after the game…3 times he mentioned how gutsy it was for Philly to shake up their line-up with Brand not starting. He didn’t have the guts to not start Mikki Moore (minus -19 in 16 minutes played). Despite losing 7 of 8 they continue to start the same group and get completly out played in the 1st and 3rd quarters. Good thing we learned on this road trip is that when Nelson goes Smart needs to go with him.
The title of your post
reminds me of Ron Artest’s tribute to Michael Jackson.
by Reverend_Randy on Dec 15, 2009 12:56 AM PST reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
