10 games in, and I like what I see

ditto that

I like what i see as well: Improved shot selection, solid team defense, much better ball movement, high field goal percentages, and finally a Warrior team that has a boat load of quality free throw shooters.

Given the current record, my friend suggested the W’s should just tank it the rest of the year to get a high draft pick. Cheer for the team to lose?? Then why bother being a fan huh?

by spacedout on Feb 11, 2009 9:05 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

I'm cheering for the stock market to go down...

So I can buy cheap stocks.

They’re cheering for the losing in the hopes that a good lottery pick will net an all star which will lead to years upon years of successfully cheering for winning. It’s weird to me (and clearly you too), but I understand it. And seriously, it’s all a lot of fans really have to hold onto anymore. With the recent foray into “non-suckienss” followed by the complete explosion of the team, and then the suckage this season, it’s hard to root for the current group and easier to root for “the future”.

"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0

by Dubs fan in Boston on Feb 11, 2009 9:24 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Unless we get top 3 pick - there is no reason to tank

Other than maybe Griffin, there is no one in the draft that will make an immediate impact. I love Monroe, but I doubt he will be there. I would rather trade our pick and some pieces for a good veteran power forward that has maybe a 2-3 year deal.

We have valuable pieces: Turiaf, Kaz, Belli, Randolph, Wright – if we can get someone like Artest or AK47 I think it could complete our team. I do not want Bosh or Amare on a short term basis giving up Monte or Beans.

by terryteagle on Feb 11, 2009 9:25 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

if we don't tank, there's no reason to expect a shot a top-3 pick

even if we don’t get BG at #1, the higher the pick the better shot we have of trading it for that good, veteran PF you think is out there …

by hardcore on Feb 11, 2009 10:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

YAY!!!! Middle of the lottery again!!!! YAY!!!! Another project pick!!!!

Sorry if I dont share your enthusiasm, but I dont see how this team is ever going to be any better than mediocre. I dont consider Wright to be “solid.” And the gaping hole at the 4 is absolutely devastating, you just cant be a very good team with such a huge hole unless you have the type of superstar that can cover such a massive flaw in the team. I really do like Monta and Biedrins but Biens is never going to be a star and I think Monta is has too many of his own deficiencies to be able to hide the team’s.
Too many years of this same cycle of mediocirty keeps us right around the 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th best team in the west and I dont really see that changing with the roster as it is. Yes, there are certainly some positives that get overlooked too often, and yes many of us are admittedly too hasty to adopt a doom and gloom outlook, but when you consider the context of the past 20 years and really compare our roster with other teams its tough to really get excited about a 10 game “hot streak” where we play .500 basketball. I dont know that tanking is the answer, (and I honestly dont feel very good about the idea of watching a team that isnt going out there to win, even if they do have a long range goal in mind) but I do know that a middle of the first round pick combined with zero cap flexibility for the next 5 years with so much money tied up in guys who arent going to get any better, is not the anwer.

"It’s a hobby of mine. Kind of like collecting your fingernail clippings or pooping in jars." -olympic mike

by sam23 on Feb 11, 2009 9:47 AM PST reply actions 1 recs

I think you'll see a lot of "Resigned Warriors fan" in there if you look again

Yes, I think the team is far better than their current record, no, we don’t have a forseeable path to a championship… other than possibly hitting the lottery jackpot.

Too many years of this same cycle of mediocirty keeps us right around the 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th best team in the west and I dont really see that changing with the roster as it is.

Yep… except I see this line up maybe expanding that to include te 6th and 7th spots… but certainly no better than that, ever… unless Monta turns into CP3/Jordan and Wright turns into KG/Bosh… but that’s not happening is it.

I dont consider Wright to be "solid."

He’s certainly not a “solid NBA starter”, but he’s a “solid promising 20 year old”. He’s got good numbers for the minutes he’s played, he’s lacking in some parts of his game… mostly I think the mental aspects, but he’s at least does good things when he’s in the game. He’s not “playoff playing time” material, but I could easily see him getting there somewhat soon.

a 10 game "hot streak" where we play .500 basketball

That’s highly unfair. It’s not just some “hot streak”, the team is mostly healthy, Monta is back, and we haven’t traded anybody in a long time. It’s not like we’re magically shooting the ball a thousand times better.

I do know that a middle of the first round pick combined with zero cap flexibility for the next 5 years with so much money tied up in guys who arent going to get any better, is not the anwer

What’s an “anwer” ;-)… but I digress. I completely agree with you on this. I’m just trying to enjoy the team I’m seeing right now. Nobody knows what’ll happen in the future and I certainly don’t want to think about the obvious issues you bring up here. All I’m saying is that this team, right now, is a million times better than 90% of GSoM seems to give them credit for. There’s way too much of a “blow up the team” mentality going around right now. It’s not that dire.

Maggette doesn’t suck, Jax doesn’t either. Are they worth their contracts? No, they’re not. But they’re still good basketball players that each have a well defined, valuable role to the team.

"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0

by Dubs fan in Boston on Feb 11, 2009 11:05 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

PS

You get a rec too, since we’re being all friendly about it.

"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0

by Dubs fan in Boston on Feb 11, 2009 11:05 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

yea

we actually mostly agree I guess. And perhaps I need to stop focusing on the bleak prospects of dramatic improvement and how overpaid our good players are and just enjoy the on-court product more.

"It’s a hobby of mine. Kind of like collecting your fingernail clippings or pooping in jars." -olympic mike

by sam23 on Feb 11, 2009 11:43 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Dramatic improvement is a pipe dream to begin with

You need to get extremely lucky by drafting somebody who turns into a superstar, and they come from all over, and/or being in the right situation at the right time with the right pieces and the right trade partner…

After years of “Well, at least we’re better than the Clippers, right? Right? Does anybody agree with me?!?!?!”, I’ll take “We’re definitely better than the Clippers and Sacramento. We might make the playoffs this year if we’re lucky.” any day.

Accepting “nothing but the best” without dipping into luxury tax is a fools game, like roulette. You can be conservative by betting on black (drafting for existing talent, not potential), but you’ll still lose in the end, or you can go for the gusto (drafting for potential, hoping for a superstar), but you’ll miss far more often than you’ll hit and you’ll still lose in the end.

I’d rather build a culture of winning, even mediocre winning, and try to leverage that into a half decent destination for free agent talent. Right now, they avoid us like the black plague. The only way we get anybody to come is if we throw briefcases of cash at them (See: Maggette, Corey). Maybe if we don’t completely suck some free agent will look at us and say “I’m the missing piece!” and Cohan will say “He’s the missing piece! Let’s dip into lux tax!”…

What, where am I… dammit, I must have had that dream again where the Warriors don’t suck. Off to work…

"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0

by Dubs fan in Boston on Feb 11, 2009 11:53 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

why?

Im with you sam. thanks to Monta coming back we have just officially locked ourselves into the 13 pick of the draft. Being a Warriors fan long enough makes you feel like making the playoffs is the goal, when that should be the minimum expecte every year….

We will probably need to be patient and let this season play out.
-warriorsvictim

by warriorsscore110 on Feb 15, 2009 3:22 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

i'm with you

at first i was excited on the draft but watching more and more college bball…. unless we get griffin or james hardne (not player of need) i see no1 who can help us anytime soon…we got enoguh projects…

i’d be tempted to trade down and for a high teens to mid 20s pick +a decent rebouding pf

by tafkasam on Feb 11, 2009 11:27 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I honestly dont feel very good about the idea of watching a team that isnt going out there to win, even if they do have a long range goal in mind

Man up Sammy and fight for the lottery balls ! if not turn off the TV and I’ll gladly watch them build for the future :>) of course with nellie trying to pad his win total he’s not likely to care if we get a good draft position or not so we’re probably screwed again this year, 9 or 10 pick?

Now wheres the rubbers? Whose got the rubbers?
I noticed there's so many of them
and there's really not that many of us.

by Skeptic con Urquell on Feb 11, 2009 12:07 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I want to!

I really do want to root for lottery balls, but when the game comes on its just too hard.

"It’s a hobby of mine. Kind of like collecting your fingernail clippings or pooping in jars." -olympic mike

by sam23 on Feb 11, 2009 12:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

when the game comes on its just too hard.

Haha, that’s one advantage of being old, We’ve seen all this before.

Now wheres the rubbers? Whose got the rubbers?
I noticed there's so many of them
and there's really not that many of us.

by Skeptic con Urquell on Feb 11, 2009 2:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I dont consider Wright to be "solid."

Me neither… I think that’s selling him slightly short.

People get too caught up in preconceptions. We’re all prone to envisioning the power forward that could come save us. Whether this power forward looks like Amare Stoudemire, Blake Griffin, or someone else, it’s a four that can dominate the defensive glass and score 25 a game. Well, Brandan Wright is not that power forward. Brandan Wright is not going to single-handedly put us back on the map in terms of defensive rebounding, and he’s not going to lead the team in scoring… that’s not the kind of power forward he is.

But he is a power forward, and he is pretty good. And for a team who badly needs production at the four, that’s relevant. Nellie, and we, just need to forget about how Wright looks, and focus on what he does.

Wright doesn’t always look impressive offensively… he’s not versatile in a crowd-pleasing way, and sometimes he looks downright goofy. But you know what? His baby hooks count as much as Jamal Crawford’s jumpers, and Wright hits his shots far more often. His field goal percentages this year, last year, and two years ago at UNC have been uncommonly good. Wright’s a very good offensive rebounder. Wright almost never turns the ball over… only Morrow turns it over less. Guess what, folks? He’s an extremely productive offensive player. Doesn’t matter how it looks.

“Okay,” you’re saying, “but his defense STINKS. Have you seen him out there?” Yes, I have, and yes, he does look a little lost at times. But

1) so does everybody on this team. The defensive coaching on this team, particularly in the first half of the season, was fireably bad
2) Doesn’t matter how it looks.

How has Brandan Wright been as a defender? Not great, but not outright terrible. He hasn’t been a force on the defensive glass, and that’s definitely been his biggest weakness. On the other hand, Wright is a passable individual defender and has been a pretty decent, though mistake-prone, help defender. He scores both blocks and steals at a decent rate for a four… neither stat proves one’s a good defender, but you’d rather have a guy get blocks and steals than not. Add up all the evidence, and Wright’s been a somewhat below-average defender. By no means our best, but far from our worst.

So we have a power forward who’s well above average on offense and a little below average on defense. You know what that makes? A pretty decent power forward. He’s goofy-looking and his game ain’t pretty, but his results, for a young big man, are excellent. You expect young bigs to be a little lost defensively for awhile… you can live with it, especially if they shoot 55% from the field.

This isn’t to say that we shouldn’t keep looking for a power forward. On the contrary, if we could trade Monta, Wright and Randolph for Amare right now, I’d party and freak out. But we have a talented, effective young guy who plays the position, and figures to get better with time. Don Nelson may not realize it, but that doesn’t mean we can’t.

by onlxn on Feb 11, 2009 3:07 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs

don't forget

that Wright is just 22 as well. He will get a lot better, especially at defense, I’d think.

by FishStix on Feb 11, 2009 3:13 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

by solid I mean average or at least close to it. Do you really think Wright is close to an average starting PF, or even an average 3rd big man type?

"It’s a hobby of mine. Kind of like collecting your fingernail clippings or pooping in jars." -olympic mike

by sam23 on Feb 11, 2009 10:20 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

When I considered him in my "2-3 big men"

He was the “-3”. He’s young, has longupsidepotential, and has actually shown to be somewhat useful when he puts his mind to it. He doesn’t think he’s the greatest thing since sliced bread, he plays within himself on offense. He’s by no means “average starting PF” material right now, but he’s pretty good for a young guy and I think he has the makeup to become a “average starting PF”, probably no super star in him, but an efficient complimentary piece certainly.

"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0

by Dubs fan in Boston on Feb 12, 2009 5:56 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I really don’t think you guys are thinking about this clearly.

The average NBA starting power forward isn’t Amare Stoudemire or Paul Millsap… the average NBA starting power forward is somebody like LaMarcus Aldridge. And guess what? Brandan Wright is just as good as LaMarcus Aldridge. Aldridge scores more often and passes a bit better, but Wright scores much more efficiently and (yes, it’s true) rebounds a bit better. Wright has some defensive flaws, but he’s certainly not any softer than Aldridge… frankly, I think Wright is probably the better defender.

There is literally no reason to think Brandan Wright is any worse than the average NBA starting power forward. You can say he’s been protected by favorable matchups, or that he’d wear down if he played too many minutes, but there’s just no evidence of any of that. In his 900 minutes in the NBA so far, Brandan Wright has very consistently outplayed opposing power forwards… he hasn’t outplayed them by a lot, but he has absolutely outplayed them. To contend that, despite that, he’s somehow just not capable of keeping up, is bizarre.

by onlxn on Feb 12, 2009 8:48 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

If you really think Brandan Wright is just as good as LaMarcus Aldridge, I ask you to bring your argument to the rest of the NBA blogs and see if one of them gives Brandan Wright more tha 10%. There is little reason to think that Brandan Wright could easily BECOME an “average starting PF” someday, but that day is not today. He’s solid as a #3 guy, but you’re deceiving yourself if you think he’s starter material. If you’ve got 900 minutes of evidence to support that Brandan Wright has “very consistently ouplayed” everyone he’s faced, I’d like to see it. He gives up rebounds to guards, he stands in the key forgetting about the little 3 second violation issue, he doesn’t have much of an offensive repertoire (sure he knows his limits and very, very admirably stays within them, but that’s still a small box he’s working from).

"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0

by Dubs fan in Boston on Feb 12, 2009 8:56 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

If you really think Brandan Wright is just as good as LaMarcus Aldridge, I ask you to bring your argument to the rest of the NBA blogs and see if one of them gives Brandan Wright more tha 10%.

I don’t particularly care what other NBA blogs think… I doubt you do, either.

LaMarcus Aldridge seems better because he starts and racks up a lot more points. Neither of those things means he’s better.

If you’ve got 900 minutes of evidence to support that Brandan Wright has "very consistently ouplayed" everyone he’s faced, I’d like to see it.

Are you… are you serious?

The NBA keeps things called “statistics”. According to those statistics, Brandan Wright is an extremely good offensive player, and a slightly subpar defensive player. That adds up to a pretty solid player.

What are you not understanding here?

He gives up rebounds to guards

He does sometimes, yes… I’d like to see his rebounding improve. Nevertheless, he’s a better rebounder than LaMarcus Aldridge. You should really check these “statistics” out sometime!

he stands in the key forgetting about the little 3 second violation issue

Right, which is why he leads the team in turno… wait. Actually, Brandan Wright turns the ball over less often than any other Warrior except for Morrow, and turns the ball over a good bit less often than… you guessed it… LaMarcus Aldridge.

he doesn’t have much of an offensive repertoire (sure he knows his limits and very, very admirably stays within them, but that’s still a small box he’s working from).

You know who else doesn’t have much of an offensive repertoire? Andris Biedrins. You know who else? Shaq.

Brandan Wright scores most of his points on putbacks, layups and baby hooks. That’s a good thing. There are no points for variety in the NBA, no points for degree of difficulty. If you have an easy move that the other team can’t stop, more power to you… that gives you a leg up. Brandan Wright, thanks to his absurd length and soft touch, has this move. Yet you and other people on this blog somehow try to argue that’s a bad thing.

I mean, there’s no debate here. You can talk about all the bad things you’ve seen Brandan Wright do… I’ve seen them too. But this ain’t a beauty contest. He does good things much more often, and overall, he’s a pretty good player. If you think he’s not, you’re simply not paying very close attention.

by onlxn on Feb 12, 2009 9:26 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

You know who else doesn’t have much of an offensive repertoire? Andris Biedrins. You know who else? Shaq.

ummmmm……Shaq? really, dude? He turns and dunks a lot because its the most difficult move to stop, but if youve watched Shaq throughout his career you’d know the guy has great offensive footwork and some of the best post moves ever from a man his size. Comparing Wright’s offenisve game to Shaq’s is flat out ignorant.

"It’s a hobby of mine. Kind of like collecting your fingernail clippings or pooping in jars." -olympic mike

by sam23 on Feb 12, 2009 11:09 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

+1

Sure, he’s huge and bulky…but like you yourself said onlxn…it ain’t a beauty contest. That you would say Shaq has no offesnive repertoire is sort of ridiculous.

"They can trade me," Bonds said. "I don't think they will, though. It's not like I want to be traded, man. I'm a Giant. I'm stuck here till the end."

by GameSix on Feb 12, 2009 12:14 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

If you think he’s not, you’re simply not paying very close attention.

So is nobody else paying attention besides you? Because I dont think you’ll find another intelligent NBA fan in the world who will agree with you about Wright being as good or better than Aldridge.

"It’s a hobby of mine. Kind of like collecting your fingernail clippings or pooping in jars." -olympic mike

by sam23 on Feb 12, 2009 11:10 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Sammy,

my man, compare LA and BW 48 minutes stats, I think you will be pleasently suprised.

Also keep in mind that Wright is 2 years younger and is getting the same oppurtunity here that Aldridge is getting up in Portlans.

We will probably need to be patient and let this season play out.
-warriorsvictim

by warriorsscore110 on Feb 15, 2009 3:28 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

what part of this is so hard to understand?

You cannot stretch per minute numbers and think

if,you double his minutes
then, you double his stats

"They can trade me," Bonds said. "I don't think they will, though. It's not like I want to be traded, man. I'm a Giant. I'm stuck here till the end."

by GameSix on Feb 17, 2009 7:39 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

what part of this is so hard to understand?

You cannot stretch per minute numbers and think

if,you double his minutes
then, you double his stats

Actually if the original sample size is sufficient you can expect per minute stats to hold up under extended minutes. If someone can perform well in limited minutes consistently the chances are good that he could perform well in extended minutes.

Check this out:
http://ww.basketballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=501

Thing 2

by olympicmike on Feb 17, 2009 4:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

how dare you

attempt to baffle me w/statistics and evidence?

It seems pretty close, until you look at the PER number. So I still remain a little bit skeptical. On average shooting percentage went up, but it was split down the middle on who improved and who worsened. Maybe it’s more like a bell curve? I wonder if the guys who improved really took it up a notch, whereas the lame guys pulled the average back down? Thanks for the link that’s really interesting…

Shooting percentage: On average, effective field goal percentage and True Shooting percentage both increased by .003. Eight players saw their shooting percentages improve with the extra minutes; nine saw declines.

Points per 40 minutes: +1.82 on average; 15 improved, 2 declined.

Rebounds per 40 minutes: -0.01 on average; 11 improved, 6 declined.

Assists per 40 minutes: +0.48 on average; 10 improved, 7 declined.

Steals + Blocks per 40 minutes: -0.11 on average; 4 improved, 13 declined.

Turnovers per 40 minutes: -0.10 on average; 9 improved, 8 declined. (Of course, improved means lower turnovers here.)

Fouls per 40 minutes: -0.92 on average; 13 improved, 4 declined.

And finally… PER: +2.38 on average, 15 improved, 2 declined.

"They can trade me," Bonds said. "I don't think they will, though. It's not like I want to be traded, man. I'm a Giant. I'm stuck here till the end."

by GameSix on Feb 18, 2009 6:50 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

again

I want to point out that while the sample group is players who filled in for injured guys, the sample group is guys who received significant minutes while filling in. A coach will fill the injured players minutes with the guy who fills them effectively. If two players replace one injured guy and one excels and the other fails miserably, obviously the guy who excels will then receive the bulk of the minutes, thus keeping the guy who fails out of the sample data. The stats are very interesting but I think this is a critical flaw.

"It’s a hobby of mine. Kind of like collecting your fingernail clippings or pooping in jars." -olympic mike

by sam23 on Feb 18, 2009 8:48 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

It’s a potential flaw, but if you walk through the guys in the study, it’s a flaw they controlled for pretty energetically. These were all situations where there was basically only one warm body to throw into the slot, and given the nature of the bench, that guy was pretty much guaranteed the minutes no matter how he played. They avoided scenarios where a battle opened up for a job, because, as you say, that’d obviously shift the stats upward as superior players beat out inferior players.

I don’t think this theory is absolutely bulletproof. There are exceptions and counterexamples and asterisks. But none of them seem likely to apply to Brandan Wright. He is not a guy who has predominantly played in garbage time… most of his minutes have been in competitive situations, and actually many of them have been against first units. Moreover, the most common stumbling block with extending big men’s minutes is that a lot of them foul too often to stay on the floor for long… this is why Turiaf couldn’t play consistent starter’s minutes even if Nellie wanted him to. Wright doesn’t foul incredibly often — much less often than Turiaf, less often than Randolph, less often than Biedrins and even Maggette. He fouls a fair amount, and his foul rate was increasing in the last couple weeks before he got hurt, so it may be worth paying attention to going forward. But he doesn’t foul so often that he couldn’t play 30 minutes a game on a regular basis.

It’s not that it’s a dead-shot certainty that Brandan Wright would succeed as our starting power forward… it’s that there’s no good reason to think that he wouldn’t. The only reason to think so is his skinniness, and that hasn’t stopped him so far — skinniness isn’t stopping Randolph from playing a pretty mean backup center right now, either. Wright’s a weird player. But what he does works, and we’d do well to let him do more of it when he gets healthy.

by onlxn on Feb 18, 2009 12:18 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I'll agree to that

I’m not saying its a useless study at all. And I do have to say I am much higher on BWright (and slightly more down on LA) now than I was before you introduced me to the Millsap Doctrine. Thanks!

"It’s a hobby of mine. Kind of like collecting your fingernail clippings or pooping in jars." -olympic mike

by sam23 on Feb 18, 2009 12:56 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Nailed it...

It’s not that it’s a dead-shot certainty that Brandan Wright would succeed as our starting power forward… it’s that there’s no good reason to think that he wouldn’t.

I’m as skeptical as anyone about the idea that increased playing time inherently improves a players performance, but I think the study at the very least shoots some really big holes through the idea that “you can’t use per minute stats to project how someone would play if given starters minutes”. I think, given the evidence, you can get a pretty good idea of how someone will perform with more minutes if you have a good healthy sample size to draw from.

This just reinforces my thinking that, given the alternatives, Wright deserves more time when he gets healthy.

Thing 2

by olympicmike on Feb 18, 2009 3:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Brandan Wright is just as good as LaMarcus Aldridge.

dude, thats flat out insane. crazy. ridiculous.

"It’s a hobby of mine. Kind of like collecting your fingernail clippings or pooping in jars." -olympic mike

by sam23 on Feb 12, 2009 11:06 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

It’s really, really not. But I’m not saying that because I think Brandan Wright is all that good… I’m saying that because I think LaMarcus Aldridge is not all that good. Neither is Troy Murphy, neither is Al Harrington, neither is Yi, neither is Nick Collison, neither are a lot of guys who start at the 4 in the league… I’ll go through Dubs’ list below.

It’s easy to rack up big counting stats when you play a lot… that doesn’t mean you’re good. Warriors fans should know that better than most.

by onlxn on Feb 12, 2009 11:34 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

its also very very easy to put up impressive per minute averages when you play limited minutes and many of them are meaningless. It continues to astonish me that so many Warriors fans dont recognize this. They continue to overvalue guys who put up ok numbers in very limited minutes.

"It’s a hobby of mine. Kind of like collecting your fingernail clippings or pooping in jars." -olympic mike

by sam23 on Feb 12, 2009 12:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Was I not clear? Yes, I consider Wright to be better than an average 3rd big man type, and quite possibly an average starting PF. His offensive numbers are far better than the average starting PF, so he would rate as average overall even with fairly poor defense. I don’t think his defense is any worse than “fairly poor”.

There are only two reasons you think Wright is worse than an average starting PF: 1) because Wright looks thin and goofy, and 2) because Don Nelson thinks he’s worse than an average starting PF. Well, looks don’t matter, and Don Nelson is wrong. Brandan Wright is a pretty good player. He’s not the exact type of PF we might want — in a perfect world, we’d probably trade some of his offensive efficiency for a couple more rebounds — but what he does, he does quite well, and we’re better when he plays.

by onlxn on Feb 12, 2009 8:34 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

If Brandan Wright is so great and it's only Nellie who doesn't understand this...

Why can’t the front office get somebody to take him in a trade packaged with Biedrins or Monta for Bosh or Amare? If you could get a potential star AND a 22 year old starting caliber PF for just one player who isn’t mission critical, wouldn’t you pull the trigger? If you could trade a guy who’s riding pine along with a potential star for a bonafide star, wouldn’t you?

Brandan Wright shows more than flashes of what he can do, but he’s still not quite there yet. Nellie, despite what you and most of GSoM would like to believe, is not a complete idiot and he hasn’t lucked into 1200 NBA wins.

"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0

by Dubs fan in Boston on Feb 12, 2009 9:00 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Now you’re just being silly. Bosh and Amare are mission critical… they’re two of the very best players in the league. Of course you don’t trade them for Monta Ellis and an average starting power forward. Wright’s ceiling is nowhere near as high as either of those guys’, and neither is Monta’s, quite frankly.

I don’t think Don Nelson is a complete idiot… I think he has been, over the course of his career, an extremely good coach. I do think he prefers certain types of players over other types… he avoids non-shooters sometimes to his detriment. Andris Biedrins should’ve played more than 27 minutes a game last year, and Brandan Wright should be playing more than 17 minutes a game this year (or 13, if you count all the DNP-CDs).

Isn’t it telling that my argument — that Wright is good — is very simple and evidence-based, while yours — that he’s not — is based on these circuitous hypotheticals about coach mentality and possible trades? Occam’s Razor, dude. Brandan Wright is a pretty good player.

by onlxn on Feb 12, 2009 9:33 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Argh

These are the starting forwards of the east. Tell me which ones you wouldn’t take over Brandan Wright in a pick up game for your life.

KG
Varejao
Sheed
Rashard Lewis
Al Horford/Josh Smith
Brand/Thaddeus Young
Beasley/Marion
Villaneueva
Jianlian
Luol Deng
Al Harrington/David Lee
Murphy
Bosh
Diaw/Wallace
Jamison

Here’s the West:
Gasol/Odom
Duncan & Oberto
Nene
West
Nowitski
Aldridge
Boozer
Artest, Battier, and Scola
STAT
Kevin Love/Jefferson
Darko
Jeff Green, Collison
Zach Randolph, Kaveman, Camby
Jason Thompson, Spencer Hawes, Mikki Moore (Yeah, the Kings are hurting)

Let me know who you think Brandan Wright is really better than. Are you still going to try to convince me that Brandan Wright is better than half of these guys? Or are you going to try to throw the top half out because “KG & Duncan are really Centers, so’s Al Horford!!!”

"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0

by Dubs fan in Boston on Feb 12, 2009 10:23 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs

none of the above

"It’s a hobby of mine. Kind of like collecting your fingernail clippings or pooping in jars." -olympic mike

by sam23 on Feb 12, 2009 11:14 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs

C'mon now

That’s not fair. Brandan is at least as good as Spencer Hawes, Troy Murphy, and Darko. Right?

"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0

by Dubs fan in Boston on Feb 12, 2009 11:17 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Darko maybe. maybe. And maybe Varejao. Not Hawes or Murphy though.

"It’s a hobby of mine. Kind of like collecting your fingernail clippings or pooping in jars." -olympic mike

by sam23 on Feb 12, 2009 11:18 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Ouch

I have to disagree with you there. I’d take Wright over Hawes right now in a game for my life. I’d probably go with Murphy though… I kinda like Varejao though. Don’t know why…

"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0

by Dubs fan in Boston on Feb 12, 2009 11:19 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

and probably Yi, but Ryan Anderson is starting lately I believe and he’s looked better to me than Wright.

"It’s a hobby of mine. Kind of like collecting your fingernail clippings or pooping in jars." -olympic mike

by sam23 on Feb 12, 2009 11:20 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

To be honest

When I started making that list, I thought I was just going to go through a few names. Then I started noticing that I knew of a better power forward off the top of my head for almost every single team in the NBA…

"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0

by Dubs fan in Boston on Feb 12, 2009 11:24 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Spencer Hawes? Give me a break!

by Jeffo on Feb 12, 2009 11:07 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Hawes better than Wright?

That’s just stupid

by Jeffo on Feb 13, 2009 11:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

To the tenth power dumb!

by Jeffo on Feb 13, 2009 11:56 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

definitely

I’d rather have B. Wright over Darko and Murph! I like Spencer Hawes’ game though. I think I might rather take B. Wright over Mikki Moore too.

Swagga on a Hundred! Thousand! Trillion!

by ItsDatFriscoSwag415 on Feb 17, 2009 3:55 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

rec'd two posts for truth

I don’t really see where oxln is coming from on this. it’s one thing to say bwright could be better than Aldridge. But then to say that Wrights straight up better than average, based on zero statistical evidence…? I think you said the evidence “was out there” or something to that effect…but, yeah, it isn’t.

"They can trade me," Bonds said. "I don't think they will, though. It's not like I want to be traded, man. I'm a Giant. I'm stuck here till the end."

by GameSix on Feb 12, 2009 12:24 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Wright’s numbers are as good as Aldridge’s. How does that not qualify as evidence?

If you like, I’ll rephrase: there is absolutely no evidence that Brandan Wright is not as good as LaMarcus Aldridge. So why don’t we play the guy more and find out whether he is or not?

by onlxn on Feb 12, 2009 12:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Not accurate.

You cannot stretch per minute numbers and think

if,you double his minutes
then, you double his stats

The whole contention is that Sam23 said he wouldn’t consider Wright solid, right? You yourself have said he is one of the worst power forwards in the league. Bottom 10% of the league = not solid. Sorry.

Now, Aldridge is solid. He has maintained a solid field goal percentage against opponent’s FIRST teams. He is a better distributor of the rock. LaMarcus Aldridge is the definition is solid. Wright is not. Could he be? Uh, I guess…but you know what happens when a dude who weighs 210 goes up against average power forwards on a nightly basis? He gets his shoulder dislocated.

"They can trade me," Bonds said. "I don't think they will, though. It's not like I want to be traded, man. I'm a Giant. I'm stuck here till the end."

by GameSix on Feb 12, 2009 12:43 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs

You cannot stretch per minute numbers and think

if,you double his minutes
then, you double his stats

No, you’re right… on average, guys play better when their minutes double. Would Wright? I don’t know. But there’s no reason to assume he’d play worse.

The whole contention is that Sam23 said he wouldn’t consider Wright solid, right? You yourself have said he is one of the worst power forwards in the league. Bottom 10% of the league = not solid. Sorry.

Wright is by no means one of the worst power forwards in the league… he’s in the top 25-30% of power forwards. What I said is that he’d probably one of the worse starting power forwards in the league, which is quite a different issue. By my count 22 teams have power forwards who are better. That’s a lot, and if you take that to mean he’s not “solid”, fair enough. But a scrub he ain’t.

Now, Aldridge is solid. He has maintained a solid field goal percentage against opponent’s FIRST teams.

The idea that Wright has mainly played against second units is a myth. The majority of Wright’s playing time has come in games when he played starter’s minutes, in starter’s sequencing. He has played more in first quarters than in fourth quarters.

Aldridge shoots 48-49% from the field. “Solid”, but certainly no better for a power forward. There’s absolutely no question in my mind that Wright could manage that… I’d think he’d do quite a bit better.

He is a better distributor of the rock.

He is, yes. On the other hand, Aldridge isn’t that much better, and Wright turns it over less than Aldridge does. It’s an edge for Aldridge, but a tiny one.

LaMarcus Aldridge is the definition of solid.

Aldridge doesn’t do anything particularly well. His scoring’s pretty good for a PF but no better… his rebounding is below-average… he’s a soft defender. What makes him “solid”? That he scores 19 a game? Lots of guys can do that if given the minutes. Aldridge is not a bad player, but he’s nothing special.

you know what happens when a dude who weighs 210 goes up against average power forwards on a nightly basis? He gets his shoulder dislocated.

Cute. This is actually the biggest knock on Wright — there’s a risk that he doesn’t come back healthy from his shoulder injury.

But skinny guys have succeeded in this league… short guys have succeeded in this league… all sorts of guys can succeed. Thus far, thanks to his length, soft touch and energy, Brandan Wright has succeeded. Wouldn’t it make more sense to give him more burn than to assume that he’ll stop playing well?

by onlxn on Feb 12, 2009 1:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

No.

No, you’re right… on average, guys play better when their minutes double. Would Wright? I don’t know. But there’s no reason to assume he’d play worse.

False. Just false. Flat out wrong. Absolutely 100% false.

"It’s a hobby of mine. Kind of like collecting your fingernail clippings or pooping in jars." -olympic mike

by sam23 on Feb 12, 2009 1:07 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Close your eyes and cover your ears all you want, but it remains true.

A lot of young guys who have good numbers in limited minutes are exposed when they play more. I think that’s going to be happening to Marco pretty soon, in fact.

But a lot of young guys who have good numbers in limited minutes are, in fact, good, and will continue to play well if they get more minutes. Andris Biedrins. Monta Ellis. Paul Millsap.

All evidence is that the latter happens slightly more often than the former. You can sometimes put up good numbers in the NBA through smoke and mirrors, but if you keep doing it — if you’re consistently putting up truly solid, efficient numbers — it probably means you’re good.

I won’t convince you of this, and that’s fine. But know that the evidence contradicts your instincts.

by onlxn on Feb 12, 2009 1:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

You named a handful of guys, thats not exactly eveidence to the contrary. My eyes and ears are open, but you arent actually presenting any evidence, youre just naming a few isolated cases.

"It’s a hobby of mine. Kind of like collecting your fingernail clippings or pooping in jars." -olympic mike

by sam23 on Feb 12, 2009 3:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

http://ballhype.com/story/the_paul_millsap_doctrine/

“Players perform better in most measurable categories when they get more minutes.”

“Lo and behold, the data showed that these players tended to improve their performance when given more regular minutes, contradicting the critics’ naysaying. There’s a perfectly logical explanation for why this would be the case. Given more playing time, players have a chance to get warm and play through their mistakes instead of constantly watching the bench and waiting for their coach to pull them from the game.”

That’s the conclusion of Tom Ziller and Kevin Pelton, two guys who’ve studied the issue more than anyone else and who know more about basketball than you or me. And why wouldn’t this be true of Brandan Wright? He excelled in college, and was highly regarded coming out… he has done everything you might have expected of him. He’s done it while constantly watching the bench and wait for his coach to pull him. And his tools are apparent: height, absurd wingspan, good footspeed, good touch, good effort. What exactly about his game would be exposed with time? He’ll make defensive mistakes, but he’s more likely to stop making them if he gets chances to learn them, rather than disappearing for games at a time when they happen.

Really, I’m taking the more intuitive position: that someone who plays basketball well is usually good at basketball. What is your evidence otherwise? What players have put up production as good as Brandan Wright’s over a similar sample size and not proved to be capable NBA starters?

by onlxn on Feb 12, 2009 4:56 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't understand statistical studies very well

So I must ask the question- why isn’t Wright getting 30 minutes a night? And if it’s Nelson’s problem, why aren’t 29 other GMs calling about him nonstop?

You mentioned Aldridge and I remember reading a Berri article bashing Aldridge (before I realized how boring I found it). I don’t watch him often but I’m pretty sure Portland fans love him. It seems to me that his outside game works well with Oden, despite his atrocious rebounding and free throw numbers.

You also criticized Rashard Lewis, which I found interesting. When other teams and fans see Orlando on the schedule I imagine they think “oh no it’s Dwight and $120 million man Rashard!” In this context, do you think perception can effect reality, as much as reality itself?

by antihero on Feb 12, 2009 5:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

So I must ask the question- why isn’t Wright getting 30 minutes a night?

My opinion? Because Nellie prefers big men who can shoot for spacing purposes, and that ain’t Wright. Nellie might make an exception for a rebounding machine, but that ain’t Wright, either. What Wright does well — efficient, low-difficulty offense — isn’t something that Nellie particularly values, especially when he’s already getting that from another guy.

And if it’s Nelson’s problem, why aren’t 29 other GMs calling about him nonstop?

For one thing, GMs don’t call about better guys like Rose or Mayo either. Young guys don’t actually change hands all that often in midseason these days, I think partially because teams are so worried on giving up on a guy who turns out to be good. In fact, for all the talk of Nellie being down on him, there’s no indication that the Warriors have ever actually made Wright available. (He’s also injured right now, of course, so it’s not a time when anybody would inquire.)

But it may be that other GMs are down on Wright, and if so, I’d guess it’s for the same reasons that so many people here thinks he sucks, despite his good results — because he’s skinny and goofy-looking and looks lost at times. He doesn’t look like a power forward. But so far, he has played like one, and I think that’s more important.

It seems to me that his outside game works well with Oden, despite his atrocious rebounding and free throw numbers.

I’d agree with that… Portland certainly works as a team with Aldridge in the lineup. He’s used well offensively — they know how to play to his strengths. Nellie clearly has no idea what to do with Wright, and in Nellie’s defense, Wright’s offensive game isn’t one you plan around — he sets a lot of picks, gets some offensive boards and scores on the margins. But he does all of that quite well — that type of approach can be very useful, especially if you have lots of scoring elsewhere, as we do. Wright has been a significant offensive asset despite never getting a play called for him. That’s impressive.

When other teams and fans see Orlando on the schedule I imagine they think "oh no it’s Dwight and $120 million man Rashard!"

Do you think that? I don’t, really… I mainly think “oh no, it’s Dwight!”, and Jameer’s been a good bit better this year than Lewis, too. That still looks to me like one of the worst contracts in the history of the league… impressive that they worked around it.

That’s not to say Lewis sucks. He’s a pretty good player, a better player than Wright. But he plays in a system that accentuates his strengths and downplays his liabilities. Wright plays on a team that ignores his scoring ability and expects him to cover for inept wing defenders every other possession. His production has still been good.

In this context, do you think perception can effect reality, as much as reality itself?

Probably so. Hell, if you put Wright’s game in Aldridge’s body and vice versa, I imagine there wouldn’t be as much of an outcry over my contention that they’re more or less equal. Wright doesn’t look like he’d be good, and not just because of his thinness. The dude is just funny-looking. Big ears, no chin, blank expression… he looks like a stoned dork. And when he makes a mistake, as young bigs so often do, you think, “there that stoner dork goes again”.

But so far, he has produced. And while it’s not an absolute certainty that he could sustain a high level of production given starter’s minutes, health permitting, there’s no particular reason to think he couldn’t. I love Nellie, but not giving this power forward a chance to prove himself, in this lost season, has been a serious mistake. Hopefully Wright gets more of a chance when he returns.

by onlxn on Feb 12, 2009 7:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Hell, if you put Wright’s game in Aldridge’s body and vice versa, I imagine there wouldn’t be as much of an outcry over my contention that they’re more or less equal.

……well, yea. If you put Wright’s game in Aldridge’s body you’d litterally have a better player. Wright’s skinny body IS a weakness in his game.

"It’s a hobby of mine. Kind of like collecting your fingernail clippings or pooping in jars." -olympic mike

by sam23 on Feb 12, 2009 8:42 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Skinny body and all, Wright rebounds a bit better than Aldridge… Wright’s at least Aldridge’s equal as a defender. Wright certainly blocks a lot more shots. If Aldridge’s bigger body gives him an advantage, he’s certainly not using it.

by onlxn on Feb 12, 2009 9:14 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I disagree about Wright being as good of a defender. And I dont think its close. Aldridge is a very good weak side defender, Wright is not. Wright blocks shots, but he also cant handle too many PFs in the post.

"It’s a hobby of mine. Kind of like collecting your fingernail clippings or pooping in jars." -olympic mike

by sam23 on Feb 12, 2009 9:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

fair enough

"It’s a hobby of mine. Kind of like collecting your fingernail clippings or pooping in jars." -olympic mike

by sam23 on Feb 12, 2009 6:00 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

on second thought, youre still wrong

correlation is not causation. Good players get increased minutes thus creating this statistical “evidence.”

"It’s a hobby of mine. Kind of like collecting your fingernail clippings or pooping in jars." -olympic mike

by sam23 on Feb 12, 2009 10:14 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Read it more carefully, ace. They controlled for that.

by onlxn on Feb 12, 2009 10:53 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

thats still not really a control for that…..the guy who gets plugged in is still the best option available, not necessarily the first option.

"It’s a hobby of mine. Kind of like collecting your fingernail clippings or pooping in jars." -olympic mike

by sam23 on Feb 12, 2009 11:36 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

the data showed that these players tended to improve their performance when given more regular minutes, contradicting the critics’ naysaying.

  What the numbers show is that players that get better get more minutes. No one’s gonna waste minutes on a bad player.
   Wright is nothing special when compared to the average NBA player, which means he’s very good compared to the average joe :>)
   Bottom line is are we winning more with him hurt or were we winning more with him healthy?

Now wheres the rubbers? Whose got the rubbers?
I noticed there's so many of them
and there's really not that many of us.

by Skeptic con Urquell on Feb 19, 2009 8:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Right now

There are too many other variables and the sample size is way too small to make any judgments on that whatsoever. Al Harrington, however, has been around long enough and in enough different situations that a consistent negative effect can be proven. With BWright, neither positive or negative can be proven… yet.

"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0

by Dubs fan in Boston on Feb 20, 2009 8:04 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

you're asking ME?

about assuming?

Dude you keep nickel/dimeing this discussion. The issue was solid. Aldridge is solid. Your OPINION is that one day Wright COULD be solid. Today, he is not. His minutes come in the first half because he hasn’t been given the opportunity to show what he can do in heavy minutes, perhaps due to a fear that he will, oh, I don’t know…

…dislocate his shoulder.

Who said that that was the biggest knock Wright, btw? I haven’t seen that anywhere…

"They can trade me," Bonds said. "I don't think they will, though. It's not like I want to be traded, man. I'm a Giant. I'm stuck here till the end."

by GameSix on Feb 12, 2009 1:25 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

His minutes come in the first half because he hasn’t been given the opportunity to show what he can do in heavy minutes

Exactly.

And I’m the one saying that’s the biggest knock on Wright — in my opinion, his health is the biggest issue with him going forward. But the guy got injured on something of a freak play. To contend that that freak play tells us more about him as a power forward than the actual good basketball he’s played doesn’t strike me as logical.

by onlxn on Feb 12, 2009 1:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Let me know who you think Brandan Wright is really better than. Are you still going to try to convince me that Brandan Wright is better than half of these guys?

Let’s try it… this should be interesting, actually. I’m open to any result.

KG

KG by a mile, naturally.

Varejao

Probably Varejao by a little.

Sheed

Mmmm… I guess Rasheed for the defense, but it’s pretty much a toss-up. Rasheed has been pretty bad this season. He’s been far worse than Wright offensively, and the rebounding, passing, block and steal numbers are a wash. Rasheed’s certainly the better defender, but not nearly as good as he used to be. You read the name “Rasheed Wallace” and it sounds like a joke that you could compare Brandan Wright to him. But Rasheed Wallace isn’t Rasheed Wallace anymore.

Rashard Lewis

Lewis by a little bit. But again — you’re talking about a power forward who rebounds worse than Brandan Wright, defends just as bad as Brandan Wright, and for all his offensive skills, doesn’t score any more efficiently than Brandan Wright. Lewis scores at a higher volume, and there’s value in that, but not all THAT much. Rashard Lewis is a pretty flawed player.

Al Horford/Josh Smith

I regard Smith as their 4.

Brandan Wright is the superior rebounder and scores more efficiently, including at the free throw line. Smith has an edge in shot-blocking (barely this year), and is the better overall defender, though he’s similar to Wright — lots of blocks, lots of mistakes.

Josh Smith misses a lot of shots of every type and rebounds worse. The defensive gap is big, but I don’t think it’s any bigger than the offensive gap this year. I’ll take Smith on the presumption that he can get back to his level from last year, though even then, he didn’t rate much better than Wright.

Brand/Thaddeus Young

Brand is better, Young is worse. Thaddeus Young scores worse, rebounds less, turns it over more… the only argument for Young over Wright is defense, and that’s presuming a defensive crappiness from Wright that there’s simply no evidence for. Brandan Wright is better than Thaddeus Young. Let’s not get carried away with this “grass is greener” stuff.

Beasley/Marion

Marion over Wright, for sure. Beasley may become better than Wright, but it hasn’t happened yet… Wright’s outproduced Beasley so far by a comfortable margin. I’ll take Wright for now.

Villaneueva

Villanueva’s definitely better right now — if he keeps shooting like this, he’s damn good.

Jianlian

Yi STINKS. Brandan Wright is better than Yi at absolutely everything that matters.

Luol Deng

Deng is better. (Drew Gooden is not.)

Al Harrington/David Lee

Lee > Wright > Harrington. Do people really forget how flawed Al Harrington is? He’s not playing any better on the Knicks, either.

Murphy

An interesting one… Murphy rebounds much better, and scores about as efficiently, but turns it over more, and I know I’d rather have Wright on D, mistakes and all. I’m gonna say too close to call.

Bosh

Bosh is miles better.

Diaw/Wallace

Actually, I’ll say both are better than Wright.

Jamison

Jamison’s better — no better defensively, but a better scorer.

Gasol/Odom

Both better than Wright.

Duncan & Oberto

Duncan > Wright > Oberto. Oberto fills his slot well enough, but put him on the Bucks and nobody would think much of him.

Nene

He’s their center. The Nuggets’ power forward is Kenyon Martin. Between Wright and Martin, I think it’s too close to call. Wright rates ahead in scoring and rebounding, Martin’s a good bit ahead defensively.

West

David West is better.

Nowitski

Nowitski is miles better.

Aldridge

As I said before, too close to call. I certainly wouldn’t trade Wright for Aldridge.

Boozer

Better than Wright.

Artest, Battier, and Scola

Artest is their SF. Scola > Wright > Battier. Battier’s defense is still pretty nice, but he’s at the end of the line.

STAT

Miles better than Wright.

Kevin Love/Jefferson

Jefferson is their center… you’re winning this well enough, you don’t need to pad your stats. I’d absolutely take Kevin Love over Brandan Wright.

Darko

Wright, Wright, Wright. C’mon now.

Jeff Green, Collison

Wright’s better than both of these guys. Would I trade Wright’s future for Green’s future? Possibly. But Wright has outplayed Jeff Green by a lot thus far in their careers.

Zach Randolph, Kaveman, Camby

I’ll count Randolph and Kaman as their PFs, and both are better than Wright.

Jason Thompson, Spencer Hawes, Mikki Moore (Yeah, the Kings are hurting)

Wright’s better than all three. All three rebound better, but all three play worse overall. Yeah, Thompson too.

———————————————

My tally: 25 of these guys are better than Wright, three are almost exactly as good, 13 are worse. So I’ll give it to you on this one… Wright is not an average starting NBA power forward. He’s a little worse than that.

So we have a 22-year-old power forward who, right now, is something like the 26th to 29th best power forward in the NBA. That certainly doesn’t make PF a strong spot for us — I’d be into an Amare trade more than anyone. But calling it a gaping hole is extreme. We have a young player who’s getting good results there, and his bad results — all defensive — are endemic to everyone on our team.

Shouldn’t we play this guy a little more before we write him off?

by onlxn on Feb 12, 2009 12:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

once again

Game Six nailed it:

You cannot stretch per minute numbers and think

if,you double his minutes
then, you double his stats

it just doesnt work like that, otherwise there are 10 Michael Jordans out there right now that just arent getting minutes. Nellie is a good coach and he sees Wright every day in practice. He’s not just gonna sit a guy who is better than a guy who is arguably the second best player for one of the West’s elite teams (Aldridge) who also plays a position where we have a massive hole.

"It’s a hobby of mine. Kind of like collecting your fingernail clippings or pooping in jars." -olympic mike

by sam23 on Feb 12, 2009 12:59 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I screwed up the GameSix’s quote, but obviously you get the point.

"It’s a hobby of mine. Kind of like collecting your fingernail clippings or pooping in jars." -olympic mike

by sam23 on Feb 12, 2009 1:00 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

it just doesnt work like that, otherwise there are 10 Michael Jordans out there right now that just arent getting minutes.

Obviously limited minutes can distort how a player looks. But we’re not talking about a guy who’s lighting it up with three minutes left in the game. Wright has generally played in competitive situations, and a sample size of 900 minutes is not a tiny one.

Nellie is a good coach and he sees Wright every day in practice. He’s not just gonna sit a guy who is better than a guy who is arguably the second best player for one of the West’s elite teams (Aldridge) who also plays a position where we have a massive hole.

- Nellie is a good coach (historically, anyway). But Nellie is a coach with biases. These biases like him more interested in shooters than guys who do other things. It’s why we signed Croshere last year. Wright is not a type of player that Nellie values very much. Remember, Nellie was slow to give Biedrins starters’ minutes.

- I’m not contending that Wright is better than Aldridge… I’m contending that he is, by all accounts, roughly at the same level. And I wouldn’t call Aldridge their second-best player… that team is all about Roy and that center tandem. Aldridge is pretty good. But so is Brandan Wright.

by onlxn on Feb 12, 2009 1:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Wow

You are one proud homer.

Karma

by Sabonis4Ever on Feb 16, 2009 8:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Unlike you, right?

Thing 1

by Sleepy Freud on Feb 16, 2009 9:18 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I am a shameless homer

Karma

by Sabonis4Ever on Feb 16, 2009 11:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

+10000000

by buky on Feb 13, 2009 4:10 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Well if we have an average starting PF, an above average C and several average wings shouldnt we be a whole lot closer to a .500 basketball team?

"It’s a hobby of mine. Kind of like collecting your fingernail clippings or pooping in jars." -olympic mike

by sam23 on Feb 12, 2009 11:11 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

You forget

According to oxln, it’s all Nellie’s fault for not playing Wright more than 17 minutes a game. Thus, we don’t have an average starting PF because it’s Maggette, or Turiaf, or somebody else on our team who is clearly much, much worse that Brandan Wright.

"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0

by Dubs fan in Boston on Feb 12, 2009 11:12 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

ah

doesnt it always come back to being Nellie’s fault? Not like Nellie is trying to get his best players on the floor as much as possible or anything.

"It’s a hobby of mine. Kind of like collecting your fingernail clippings or pooping in jars." -olympic mike

by sam23 on Feb 12, 2009 11:15 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Getting his best players on the floor?

That would be smart. Nellie’s clearly too drunk and old to be smart. He just doesn’t like how Brandan hangs out on his lawn… that’s why he’s gotta keep the man down.

"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0

by Dubs fan in Boston on Feb 12, 2009 11:16 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

it couldnt be

that Wight’s “impressive numbers” would suffer if he actually got as much floor time as guys like Aldridge and didnt get about half of his minutes in garbage time.

"It’s a hobby of mine. Kind of like collecting your fingernail clippings or pooping in jars." -olympic mike

by sam23 on Feb 12, 2009 11:17 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Wright has not gotten half of his minutes in garbage time. He’s played far more in first halves than second halves. He frankly hasn’t played much more garbage time than guys like Jackson and Crawford… Nellie’s sort of been all over the map in how he winds down games.

Is it possible that Wright’s numbers would suffer if he played more? Absolutely. On the other hand, Wright’s numbers are currently so good that he could be as good as Aldridge with slightly worse numbers. His shooting might go down a little, but he’d also probably score more often as the team oriented towards his game.

The evidence, by the way, is that players usually get better results when their playing time increases, because they can play through mistakes and get into a rhythm. Google “Millsap Doctrine” if you don’t believe me, as I’m sure you don’t.

by onlxn on Feb 12, 2009 12:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

One final point before we move on with our lives.

You know what young player played just as well, if not better, when their minutes doubled?

LaMarcus Aldridge.

That kind of thing actually happens a lot.

by onlxn on Feb 12, 2009 1:25 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Kitten, are you really suggesting that we’re better off with Maggette at the four than Wright?

by onlxn on Feb 12, 2009 12:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Puppy

Are you really suggesting that Wright is a better basketball player than Maggette?

"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0

by Dubs fan in Boston on Feb 12, 2009 1:43 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Not remotely. Maggette is far better. And I actually like Maggette more than I like Wright.

But you have to acknowledge that Maggette starting at the four was an unmitigated disaster… even Nellie admits that now. We’re better off with Wright at the four than Maggette. Turiaf at the four over Wright is a different story… there’s a good argument for that. But I think Ronny fouls too much to make that a long-term arrangement.

by onlxn on Feb 12, 2009 1:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

C'mon now

As a fellow Maggette lover you have to understand that the entire time Maggette was “starting at the 4” he was injured, and thus cannot be judged as to whether he was good in that spot. He’ll be the 4 at some point later this season, count on it. We’ll get to see what he can do. Ronny needs to go to Andris school and learn to focus on rebounding and boxing out and stuff.

"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0

by Dubs fan in Boston on Feb 12, 2009 1:53 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I’ll agree — Maggette can probably show more at the 4 than he did earlier in the year. Still and all, though, I don’t think it’s a great fit. We can live with our small forward phoning it in defensively, especially since Jack can just take the opponents’ best swingman… a 4 phoning it in defensively is a bigger problem.

by onlxn on Feb 12, 2009 1:55 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

A buff 6'6" dude who relies on his strength when he drives a good fit at PF?

Yeah, not really. I don’t think it’s a good fit either. I was just saying it’s unfair to judge him at the position by earlier in the season.

"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0

by Dubs fan in Boston on Feb 12, 2009 1:59 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

And one more thing

Stephen Jackson, Jamal Crawford, and Corey Maggette are all well below average, in fact, they suck. Wright, the Anthonys, and Kelenna are our best players. But they get held down by Nellie’s completely incomprehensible affection for “veterans” no matter how terrible they are.*

- I am not asserting that this is oxln’s particular point of view, just the general consensus of the vast majority of “homers” on GSoM.

"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0

by Dubs fan in Boston on Feb 12, 2009 11:27 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Adorable.

For the record, I like Jack, and I probably think more of Maggette than you do. I’m not a rabid pro-youth, anti-vet guy. If anything, I think Randolph should play less than he does.

But when Anthony Morrow and, yes, Brandan Wright, play more, we do better. And when a bad team has young players getting good results, they should use those players more. Do you disagree with any of that?

by onlxn on Feb 12, 2009 12:33 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

dude give it up

you think wright can be average. but he’s not. not yet, and not by a long shot.

"They can trade me," Bonds said. "I don't think they will, though. It's not like I want to be traded, man. I'm a Giant. I'm stuck here till the end."

by GameSix on Feb 12, 2009 1:00 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

and I probably think more of Maggette than you do

You do realize you are talking to the biggest defender of Maggette around here, right? If youre much more pro-Maggette than DFiB AND you think Wright is better than Aldridge…….well, then you’re about one strike away from being the new Iggy.

"It’s a hobby of mine. Kind of like collecting your fingernail clippings or pooping in jars." -olympic mike

by sam23 on Feb 12, 2009 1:04 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I’ve been pretty loudly pro-Maggette from the signing up till now… I’d hate to think that I actually should’ve blabbed more about it.

And not that it matters — we’ve talked about LaMarcus Aldridge enough to last us a good long while — but I haven’t said that I think Wright is better. I think Wright’s just as good. I could be wrong about that, but it certainly hasn’t been proven by Wright’s play thus far. Brandan Wright has been excellent.

by onlxn on Feb 12, 2009 1:18 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Hey now

I’ve been defending Maggette because he’s been getting a seriously raw deal from the “WTF, I don’t care that he’s playing on injuries I’d be walking around in crutches with, he sucks!!!”

He’s not the greatest thing since sliced bread, he’s still overpaid, but he doesn’t suck. Don’t lump me in with this dude just because we both happen to think Maggette’s offensive efficiency is useful. I bet we both like steak too, and so do you!

"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0

by Dubs fan in Boston on Feb 12, 2009 1:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

guilty

I am a big fan of steak. Steak > Brandan Wright, no doubt.

And, like DfiB, I think offensive efficiency is useful. Which is why I’m glad we have Corey Maggette and Andris Biedrins… and the guy who’s been more efficient than both of them, whose name rhymes with “Bland and White”. (And no, don’t get confused — I’m not talking about Kurz.)

by onlxn on Feb 12, 2009 2:05 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

no, no

I dont even mean to say youre wrong about Maggette. You helped convince me that he’s not as bad as I thought for a while, but if theres no excuse for being any mor pro-Maggs than you are.

"It’s a hobby of mine. Kind of like collecting your fingernail clippings or pooping in jars." -olympic mike

by sam23 on Feb 12, 2009 2:52 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah

I seem to remember reading you say sensible things in the past and making more than a few good points.

This “Wright is super awesome” bit came out of nowhere. You’re entitled to your opinion, and I’m glad you admitted that there are 25 better PFs out there, but if you’d put your money on Wright over Oberto, Battier, and Thaddeus Young I got some money I’d like to wager. He’s an interesting piece. Hopefully he turns into something good next year.

"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0

by Dubs fan in Boston on Feb 12, 2009 1:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Oberto?! Goddamn. Shows what some rings can do for a guy’s rep.

I’m not quite sure where my Wright defense came from, either, frankly. But I tire of people selling the dude short. We should at least wait till the guy has two bad games in a row to assume he can’t help us in the here and now.

Frankly, I think Wright’s future is as a trade chip, and I think that’s fine. But even if that’s the plan, we should at least give him some minutes so people see what he can do. Jerking a guy around is not the right way to showcase him.

by onlxn on Feb 12, 2009 2:00 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

He hasn't played enough to be a trade chip

He’s far more valuable than we could get for him on the open market. We need to keep him until he proves himself a little more.

"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0

by Dubs fan in Boston on Feb 12, 2009 2:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

And on second thought...

Oberto is getting a little long in the tooth. I just remember him always being in the right place at the right time, playing decent defense, and having a little bit of that Manu Argentinian edge (Read: Flopping, playing little mind games, getting away with stuff, etc. that all the Spurs are so excellent at).

"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0

by Dubs fan in Boston on Feb 12, 2009 2:05 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I still left out a ton of "super subs"

Like Brandon Bass, Leon Powe (yes, he’s better than Wright right now, Wright will be better next year), Landry, Milsap, and probably about 5 other guys hanging around that I don’t have enough time or patience to look up.

"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0

by Dubs fan in Boston on Feb 13, 2009 7:04 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

but

you get a rec anyway, because you presented some very good points, its at least worth considering.

"It’s a hobby of mine. Kind of like collecting your fingernail clippings or pooping in jars." -olympic mike

by sam23 on Feb 11, 2009 9:59 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

There is a reason to tank

A top 3 pick would be valuable to someone else as part of a deal. I say we kick everyone’s ass for 44 minutes, then let the other teams come back and win. We will all know who the real winner is and we will improve our chances in the lottery.
Imagine the sh*tstorm that would result from obvious tanking in an NBA game. That would be kinda fun.

by warriorsvictim on Feb 11, 2009 10:07 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

ha

I gotta believe Stern would find a way to rig the lottery against any team that did that.

"It’s a hobby of mine. Kind of like collecting your fingernail clippings or pooping in jars." -olympic mike

by sam23 on Feb 11, 2009 10:18 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't know why anybody's even thinking about lottery

There are going to be thousands of frozen ping pong balls with “OKC” written all over them.

"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0

by Dubs fan in Boston on Feb 11, 2009 10:45 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I think you may very well be right, but I like Monroe a lot too.

"It’s a hobby of mine. Kind of like collecting your fingernail clippings or pooping in jars." -olympic mike

by sam23 on Feb 11, 2009 10:55 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

We wont be tanking and for all the warts on our team we seem to have laot of talent

and are very deep. Can you imagine fater the all star break when we get back beans, Belli, and BW? Wow. Unfortunately we will be draftign about 9th or 10th.

by dungeness crabdribble on Feb 11, 2009 10:10 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Reality

How can we say that they won’t get better? Biedrins has expanded his game each season (including this one, significantly), Azubuike’s development has been ridiculous, Monta is a “next-level” talent who could easily be an all-star in a couple seasons. Jack is an absolute animal and the haters need to go be Lakers fans or something. Maggs has found the perfect role. Randolph has so much talent and desire I find it hard to believe that he won’t get a lot better. Belli and Wright have both shown tons of improvement (though obviously more is needed). Let this team gel!!!! Chemistry is hugely important. In fact, unless you have three all-star caliber players on your roster (Celtics, Spurs, Lakers, Lebron counts as 2), developing great team chemistry is the only way to win, and it’s really entertaining to watch.

Monta is the singular of Montus, of the Montai

by Supafishal on Feb 11, 2009 10:24 AM PST reply actions 1 recs

Best way to improve is a trade

And our youngsters are improving (minus injury crap), everyone is playing with energy even with all the problems and never giving up (unlike other teams).

I really wish we could dump mwill (since he’ll never get any playing time) and pickup another big (hendrix!?)

by mosdl on Feb 11, 2009 10:33 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

I share your optimism....

The Warriors have been a lot easier on the eyes (even a few games before Monta’s comeback) and I think its because they’re finally starting to learn how to play together. It’s one thing to just remove Jason Richardson and plug in Wright as a permanent bench fixture…. but it’s another to remove Davis, Harrington, Barnes & Pietrus and introduce Maggette, Crawford, Turiaf and a bunch of rookies and have them automatically click. Hopefully they can keep it up and play the role of spoiler down the stretch.

by Mr. Monday Night on Feb 11, 2009 10:39 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

At this point, the Team is the smartest team in a stupid contest...

I have been going back and forth on this team all season and at this point I think the team and FO is just grasping at straws if they think this is a legitimate contender. A lot of that falls on a lot of IF’s that would have happened at the beginning of the season like if certain people didn’t get hurt or traded. Really the dubs of this year are Fool’s Gold because they make you think “hey this could be a good squad” when in reality it truly is not. The glut of 2 guards, the lack of defense, and un-willingness to give a little more playing times to the rooks are just some of the reasons this team is going no where.
Now at this point I would maybe look to move Monta for a Bosh and to a lesser extent Amare just because they are established Superstars. Plus with the economy and the way it is i don’t think it is out of the realm of possiblity that if we do get one of these guys we would be able to retain them with an contract exstension of some kind.
I know there are people who say let this team gel and give em more time but what is that really gonna prove? That the Dubs, as currently constructed, are a team that is just good enough not to suck that bad. Personally I would rather make some moves and start working on next season b/c this is a lost season essentially.

by UCdubsFan on Feb 11, 2009 10:39 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

ohhh and to the peeps like watching excitement...

I don’t know if anyone else feels like this but I would rather get W’s in exchange for excitement. What do other people feel about that?

by UCdubsFan on Feb 11, 2009 10:41 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

naw

i’ll take the excitement and the win. look at the spurs, they win all the time and are hella BORING. that’s not my type of basketball.

by J2daZ on Feb 11, 2009 11:12 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

the spurs, they win all the time and are hella BORING. that’s not my type of basketball.

Then you shouldn’t be a basketball fan, the Spurs are what it’s all about.

Now wheres the rubbers? Whose got the rubbers?
I noticed there's so many of them
and there's really not that many of us.

by Skeptic con Urquell on Feb 11, 2009 12:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

hope ur being sarcastic

basketball is my favorite sport. i just hate the spurs.

by J2daZ on Feb 11, 2009 1:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I think what he meant to say was...

“Winning is what it’s all about”.

The Spurs just happen to do a lot of it.

"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0

by Dubs fan in Boston on Feb 11, 2009 2:36 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

i just hate the spurs?

That’s like hating the Joe Montana/Jerry Rice 49ers? The Spurs are consistent quality, something we’d like to have here and you don’t like it??

Now wheres the rubbers? Whose got the rubbers?
I noticed there's so many of them
and there's really not that many of us.

by Skeptic con Urquell on Feb 11, 2009 2:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

no it's not

the 49ers were exciting. watching the spurs=watching the colts. i’ve said that many times and will keep my word on that.

by J2daZ on Feb 11, 2009 3:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

but the colts are exciting

you mean like watching the 9ers, right?

the stop calling him "beans" movement

by pervisNeverNervous on Feb 11, 2009 4:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I hate Joe Montana

very over rated, if the niners didn’t buy good players to surround him with no one would ever remember him and his 15 yd max passes

There's a party in my mind.
And I wish that I was there.

by qin on Feb 11, 2009 5:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

ya they are great! but they will put you to sleep watching them play.

by dungeness crabdribble on Feb 11, 2009 6:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

+1

by jtrosa on Feb 11, 2009 8:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Trade machine...

Amare for Crawford + Maggette….If we dont pull this one off…….

http://games.espn.go.com/nba/features/traderesult?players=1654971727&teams=21219&te=&cash=

by skeetdanut on Feb 11, 2009 10:47 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Does PHX do this? Helllllll no.

"Monta is the MAN." -Bob Fitzgerald

by WarriorForLife on Feb 11, 2009 7:00 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I thought you meant 10 games into the season.

I was like, yes…. you are correct.

I’m still trying to purge the first half of the season from my memory.

by Nuck Chorris on Feb 11, 2009 10:56 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

I also like what i've been seeing lately..

The Warriors have been playing some inspired basketball as of late and I’ve noticed an improvement in their ultra flawed defense. We were able to disrupt some of the leagues top point guards in Chris Paul, Steve Nash and Derron Williams. We forced at least 5 turnovers for each of those PG’s when they faced us. It wasn’t that we had one defensive stopper but we were actually playing better team defense and getting deflections. I credit this to defensive coordinator Keith Smart.
Also, since Monta has been back, I’ll admit that he hasn’t been back to his old self yet but he still brings a lot to the table. Even though he’s not the old Monta that we all know I think just having him out there on the floor makes defenses have to shift their focus on him when he has the ball because you never know when he can blow right past you. I also think he brings a sense of confidence to our team and I bet young Monta can talk as much trash on the court as the next man. I like what I see from him but it’s going to take a while for him to completely gain my respect again. He’s definitely going in the right direction though.

Swagga on a Hundred! Thousand! Trillion!

by ItsDatFriscoSwag415 on Feb 11, 2009 11:01 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

It really doesn't matter where we pick

With Nellie here for 2 more years, the W’s are better served packaging the pick in a deal for an established star. The only 1st round picks that have panned out this decade for the W’s are JRich and Biedrins. They are great at finding 2nd round gems and UFA, but the talent evaluation in the lottery sucks. Combine that with the fact that Nellie doesn’t like playing rookies and we’re looking at wasted picks and money. At least there is value in trading the pick. Sure Randolph and Wright might become good/great players, but they also could turn out to be POB or Diogu. I would rather package the pick and get a solid rotation player back. He doesn’t necessarily have to be a star, just someone like Turiaf, who you can count on. Potential is wasted on this team.

by barrance on Feb 11, 2009 11:04 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

A #3 pick packaged with an existing player still nets a ton more than a #10 packaged with that same player

So it still does matter where we pick.

"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0

by Dubs fan in Boston on Feb 11, 2009 11:15 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

thank you

sometimes it feels like we’re just screaming into the wind …

by hardcore on Feb 11, 2009 10:42 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

fair enough

by barrance on Feb 11, 2009 11:16 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

look what I can do

with this nifty reply button :)

"It’s a hobby of mine. Kind of like collecting your fingernail clippings or pooping in jars." -olympic mike

by sam23 on Feb 11, 2009 11:51 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Hey now, be nice

barrance, if you use the “nifty reply” button, your post will be nested with the post you’re replying to. It makes easier reading for everyone.

Don’t know why I’m not being sarcastic today… must have been something I ate.

"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0

by Dubs fan in Boston on Feb 11, 2009 11:54 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

yeah, i noticed that right after i hit POST

by barrance on Feb 11, 2009 12:14 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I was being nice!

thus the :).

"It’s a hobby of mine. Kind of like collecting your fingernail clippings or pooping in jars." -olympic mike

by sam23 on Feb 11, 2009 12:40 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Backhanded nicenessosity is not really nice

But I guess that’s what you get from a republican :)

"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0

by Dubs fan in Boston on Feb 11, 2009 2:37 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

touche

"It’s a hobby of mine. Kind of like collecting your fingernail clippings or pooping in jars." -olympic mike

by sam23 on Feb 11, 2009 5:35 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

People sure do complain a lot when we loose...

but when we win one or two, all that negativity seems to dissappear. I honestly think past signing Crawford, this year has been a decent rebuilding year. We’ve got the youngest team in the league, and if we can trade some of our mediocre big contracts paired with some of our worse defenders away for a good PF or PG, I honestly think we’ll be a championship contender in years to come.

Just think about it, we’ve got Beans and Monta (who we’ll keep at least one of), Morrow, CJ, Beli, Wright, AR, and KAz (who we’ll keep at least 3 of) all in their early to mid 20’s. If we make the right trades featuring Maggs/Jax/Craw + maybe ME/AB + 1-3 of the others, we can do this.

by FishStix on Feb 11, 2009 2:10 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

I'm calling "homer" on this one

Just think about it, we’ve got Beans and Monta (who we’ll keep at least one of), Morrow, CJ, Beli, Wright, AR, and KAz (who we’ll keep at least 3 of) all in their early to mid 20’s. If we make the right trades featuring Maggs/Jax/Craw + maybe ME/AB + 1-3 of the others, we can do this.

What is this “this” that we can “do”? Sure, we can get to the playoffs and lose the first round to whatever juggernaut happens to get the #1, #2, or #3 seed, but that’s about what this lineup will get you. Just be happy that they’re playing better now. Be hopeful that if somehow either Monta and/or Biedrins becomes a superstar, or one of the “early 20s” guys becomes a stud, we might possibly be able to compete with the Lakers as Kobe gets older IF Bynum never becomes truly good.

Don’t go around trying to convince yourself or others that this team should be expected to compete for a championship contender or that these players we have should be expected to turn into super awesome KG/Duncan/Chamberlin/Jordan mutants. It’s not gonna happen. Be a little realistic. A little hope is ok, even healthy, but piling expectations onto that hope is stupid.

"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0

by Dubs fan in Boston on Feb 11, 2009 2:44 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Hm,

what I’m saying here is that our roster has seriously flaws, or SG position is flooded and we still don’t know if AR or BW can step up to be the PF we need. Also, what I’m saying is that we have a deep bench that has a lot of talent, which should be able to land us a good deal when paired with one of our ‘vets.’ Basically, if we use our pawns correctly and trade for the superstar PF or PG we desperately need, some time in the next few years we could have a championship run.

A lot of IFs, I know, but I’m trying to stay positive.

by FishStix on Feb 11, 2009 2:49 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Superstar PFs and PGs don't ever move

Except they’re over the hill, not that great, being traded for another superstar PF or PG, or… I could go on. It doesn’t happen. You have a better chance of drafting one with the #10 pick. We do not have a bench any deeper than any other team. Just because you can’t name the 12th guy on the Magic’s bench doesn’t mean he’s worse than Anthony Randolph. Rob Kurz could easily be the WORST player in the NBA right now, and he gets PT for us.

Sure, if we could somehow package two of our old monster contracts for a superstar PF without giving up Monta, Biedrins, Turiaf, or Azubuike, yeah, we might get somewhere. Good luck trying to convince anybody to trade big for small AND give away the best talent for two non-expiring contracts.

"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0

by Dubs fan in Boston on Feb 12, 2009 6:05 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Superstar PFs and PGs don't ever move

Chris Webber, Baron Davis

by hardcore on Feb 12, 2009 4:18 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

OK

If you’re a borderline superstar AND you’re having a spat with team management, then you can move.

And seriously, what did Webber & BD ever get for the teams they moved to? It’s not like they immediately became “that final piece” and won a championship. BD didn’t make a huge impact until Jax & TMNT came around. Webber… I don’t know, but he won zero championships and made zero NBA finals.

"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0

by Dubs fan in Boston on Feb 13, 2009 7:06 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

meh

I mean technically youre right but you gotta give those two guys SOME credit they changed (at leas temporarily) the entire culture of two historically awful franchises.

"It’s a hobby of mine. Kind of like collecting your fingernail clippings or pooping in jars." -olympic mike

by sam23 on Feb 13, 2009 10:43 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Kevin Garnett
Jason Kidd
Pau Gasol
Marcus Camby

Superstars gets traded all the time. Most of the time it’s for financial reasons.

However, we never have the proper trading chips to be able to trade for superstars. It would be nice to have some large, expiring contracts. But we buy them out (Adonal Foyle), extend them (Stephen Jackson), or trade them away for longer contracts (Al Harrington). Our front office lacks patience and foresight.

Another trading chip we’d need is young talent on rookie contracts. However, we’re always trying to swing for the fences and land that high-ceiling high-risk could-be superstar. We never just settle for the guy we know is going to be NBA ready and contribute now or very soon. Teams don’t want to trade for our could-be superstar, could-be bust rookies and sophomores.

by YaHeard on Feb 15, 2009 4:15 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Jason Kidd & Marcus Camby are far, far from superstars at this point

Gernett & Gasol are the only realistic examples. “All the time” is a pretty big stretch. but we had two fantastic young players when Garnett was available, and we still couldn’t get him.

"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0

by Dubs fan in Boston on Feb 15, 2009 2:12 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Things are looking up, for sure. At this point, you’d be hard-pressed to argue that we need a point guard… the offense has been pretty damn effective since the calendar turned. There’s also been a bit more defensive effort, if not skill.

I’m just not sure how we can leverage our depth into improving the roster. Depth is kind of a weird thing for a bad team to have… it doesn’t help us much, and other teams aren’t likely to be impressed by it, since it’s not like our bench is leading us anywhere fast. We could trade away a number of guys without really hurting the team, and that’s a good thing. But I’m not sure that anybody really wants those guys, which sort of defeats the purpose. 4-for-1 trades usually help the team that gets the one, and most teams know that.

Regardless, it’s nice to see some decent ball again. Jack’s due for another rough spell, given all the minutes he’s playing lately, but hopefully an increasingly on-form Monta will make up for that. I definitely expect us to go .500 or better to finish the year, and a low seed next year isn’t entirely out of the question… but we’re in our usual position, a big away from being really interesting.

by onlxn on Feb 11, 2009 3:32 PM PST reply actions 1 recs

well, so we are who we thought we were

a mediocre team that can be exciting but also god awful. unlike some, i’m less enthusiastic for the future. what do we have, really? a lot of good pieces, but no superstar (you need at least 2 to go far in the PO). i love goose and monta together, but even the homer in me doesn’t see that as a dominating duo. ok, so then we have the high $$ guys, jax, maggs, craw who frankly, while helping us to a 30-35 win season, aren’t valuable beyond that. ok, but we’ve got some great bench players, az, cj, turiaf. i’m with you there. wow, we could have used them last year, when we needed a consistent bench. but a consistent bench on a bad team is like rims on a junker. ok, but wait, what about our prospects? well, see my first sentence. exciting and concurrently god awful. love morrow, he’s a guy that has a future in the league. rudolph? many of our awful games i’ve stayed tuned to just to see him play, hoping for it all to finally click. and in the end, isn’t that what we’re all saying here, in our various ways? these W’s, they aren’t very good, but goddammit i’m going to keep watching, no HOPING that it will all start to click.
will it?

the stop calling him "beans" movement

by pervisNeverNervous on Feb 11, 2009 4:47 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

a superstar isn't as essential as some seem to think, what matters is chemistry, and having players that play within the offensive and defensive strategy's

"so much losers" - hiero

by montamazing on Feb 11, 2009 7:58 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

"we are who we thought we were"

You’re basing that on ten games. You don’t know what we have.

"They can trade me," Bonds said. "I don't think they will, though. It's not like I want to be traded, man. I'm a Giant. I'm stuck here till the end."

by GameSix on Feb 12, 2009 12:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDAq5tyfk9E

Classic.

"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0

by Dubs fan in Boston on Feb 12, 2009 1:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

what matters is chemistry

That worked for Bonds but it’s risky now.

Now wheres the rubbers? Whose got the rubbers?
I noticed there's so many of them
and there's really not that many of us.

by Skeptic con Urquell on Feb 11, 2009 9:54 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

We've gone 5-5 against top competition?!

basing our optimism on this logic should have concerned someone in the posts above -

CLE 105-106 (L)
LAC 107-92 (W)
@DAL 93-117 (L)
@NO 91-87 (W)
@HOU 93-110 (L)
SA 105-110 (L)
PHX 124-112 (W)
@PHX 105-115 (L)
UTA 116-96 (W)
NYK 144-127 (W)

of the W’s, only 1 (one) is a legit victory over a “top” team when we played them (and no, Utah doesn’t count as decimated as they’ve been) so we went 1-3 vs. the better playoff teams (Clev, NO, Hou, SA), and 1-2 against plausible playoff teams (Dal & Phx), so we were really 2-5 against decent competition … and of those, only the narrowest win on the road in NO should really be noteworthy at all

… 2-0 against other non-playoff worthy teams (LAL, NYK) woohoo!

sorry to rain on the parade, but as long as we keep fooling ourselves that we are well constructed, or don’t need to revamp this roster significantly and soon, we are going to deserve staying stuck in the morass we enjoy currently

by hardcore on Feb 11, 2009 11:08 PM PST reply actions 2 recs

We stomped the teams we're supposed to (LAC, NYK, UTA missing players)

That’s what good teams do. You can’t discount that. A win is a win is a win. Just because we played only three games we should have won, shouldn’t take away from the fact that we won them. The Rockets went on a 22 game win streak last year. By your standard, most of their “wins” weren’t legit, so 22 games in a row doesn’t mean squat, right? Take away their record! It doesn’t matter because they played against Charlotte too many times! Get over yourself. Every team plays half their games against non playoff teams each year. The good teams win most of those games. That’s what the Warriors have been doing since Monta came back, and they’ve been doing it by 15-20 points, not nail biters.

Look at it this way (playoff teams in CAPS):

Blowout wins : lac, PHX, uta, nyc
Blowout losses : @DAL, @HOU
Close games: CLE, @NO, SA @PHX (1-3)

Beat the teams you should, play close with the top tier talent. If the Warriors played like that the entire season, they’d be a playoff team. And that’s better than anything we’ve seen in ~15 years (lightzOut is correct about the “We Believe Warriors”).

In the last 10 games, we played two of the top 5 teams in the league to the last seconds or OT, and we went into NO and took one. Yes, we also went into Dallas and Houston and got decimated and we petered out in the last few minutes against Phoenix. We won the games we should have (including stomping Phoenix at home which you seem to be ignoring) and were in tight in the games against the top competition. Because of that, I think this team is turning a corner and about to make run of over 0.500 ball. Are they championship contenders? Heck no. Will they be in the ext few years? Not without a miracle. So let’s call a spade a spade and enjoy what they’re doing NOW because the end of the tunnel is far away.

By your standards, the Celtics have gone 1-4 against Cleveland, San Antonio, and LAL. So I guess the entire season doesn’t matter anymore because they’re 1-4 in “legit” games. If you can’t beat the other contenders, you ain’t no contender. Better luck next year champs. Are you serious?

"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0

by Dubs fan in Boston on Feb 12, 2009 6:38 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Get over yourself?

I honestly hope you’re right DFIB, but imo the glass is more than half empty while your depiction was that our glass is more akin to half full. You stated we were 5-5 vs top competition, now you want to give us credit for beating teams we’re supposed to beat (although I’m not sure in our present state that very many of those teams can be defined thus). You say a win’s a win, then point to blow out wins and you give GSW credit for moral victories. Be consistent with your own standards, don’t change your argument just because I parsed the W’s & L’s differently than you.

Comparing GSW with Boston is a bit of a stretch don’t you think? Were YOU serious? Putting words in other people’s mouth (the Houston reference, the Celtics) doesn’t make your argument any better, it simply is a technique to distract the rest of the readers from the assertions you are now stepping back from. Again, I hope you’re right and we’ve turned the corner. Perhaps you see a future trend quicker while I’d like a wee bit more evidence to go on than these 10 games.

by hardcore on Feb 12, 2009 7:18 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Hypothetically speaking, if somebody says that Team X is 5-5 in their last 10 games against “top competition”, and 9 of those games are against the Lakers, Boston, and Cleveland, but one is against OKC, are you going to call shenanigans on the “top competition” aspect? Maybe I should have said “tough schedule”, but the difference is language more than anything substantial.

The thesis of your argument, from what I read, was:

we were really 2-5 against decent competition

If you’re going to throw out the teams “everyone” should beat, I’m going to throw out the teams “everyone” should lose to Cleveland and San Antonio.

So we were 2-3 against bottom tier/borderline playoff teams in 4 road games and 1 home game. Dallas, Houston, and New Orleans are all very good at home, so even LAL, BOS, CLE, and SAS would have trouble doing better than 1-2 on that road trip. We split a home & home with Phoenix in which we blew them out of the building while they struggled to put us away until the waning moments. We were very arguably the better team in those two games.

On the Houston & Boston comparisons, forgive me for thinking you were ignoring the three games we should have won (and did by 15, 20, and 17) when you said, with a healthy dose of sarcasm:

… 2-0 against other non-playoff worthy teams (LAL, NYK) woohoo!

It appeared that you were removing the non-playoff worthy teams from your judgment on how well the Warriors are playing. I used that exact logic in the Houston argument. If you look at their 22 game win streak, which came against mostly bad teams, you could say “17-0 against non-playoff teams woohoo!” So, their streak must not have been really that impressive to you.

Maybe I didn’t make it clear enough in the comparison with the Celtics, but if you’ve got a set of standards for what you expect from a Warriors team and you discount the games they play against teams “below their level of competition”, then it’s fair to say that they should be a borderline playoff team and should beat the “nowhere near playoff caliber competition” like the Knicks, Clippers, and the banged up Jazz. Right? That seems to be what you’re doing when you parse the wins & losses into “2-5 against decent competition” and “2-0 against crappy teams, woohoo!”

If you’re the Celtics and looking at a championship, the only decent competition is your fellow “Championship contenders”, everyone else should be roadkill. Against decent competition, the Celtics are 1-4. Against everyone else, who cares, right?

I was assuming, possibly erroneously, that your standard was to ignore any and all performances against comparatively bad teams when making judgments on how to judge the Warriors performance. Though, if we’d lost to the Clippers I’m sure you’d use that in your arguments that they suck, which would be completely fair.

On the “win the games they should” side, the Warriors of November and December would have lost to at least one of NYK, UTA, or LAC. And they certainly wouldn’t have beaten NO or PHX. They’d be 2-8 at best. This team is far, far better than that team. They beat the teams they should and hang tough with the better teams in this league. They played against a lot of good teams and played them close for the most part, even taking two of those games.

Finally, don’t for a second think I expect that they’d do anything in the playoffs if they’d been healthy enough to make the playoffs all season to get there. But they certainly would be fighting with Phoenix & Utah for that sacrificial #8 seed.

"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0

by Dubs fan in Boston on Feb 12, 2009 8:17 AM PST up reply actions 2 recs

hypothetically or not

I remain unconvinced, you are free to believe whatever you wish and we’ll both know more with more evidence rather than hypothetical arguments about Boston or Houston or what we might have been able to do in the playoffs if healthy etc (if I went down that path I’d include what ifs re if we hadn’t traded Harrington for Crawford etc)

I am also schizophrenic in this regard – as a fan I want my team to play well (hence my statement re hoping you are right), but I also want them to lose and get the best draft pick possible so my perfect scenario is GSW piles up moral victories on the way to increasing their draft position, package that pick with a veteran swing-man (ideally not Ellis) and get the legit PF we all know we need to be a playoff team next year

by hardcore on Feb 12, 2009 12:23 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs

+1

"It’s a hobby of mine. Kind of like collecting your fingernail clippings or pooping in jars." -olympic mike

by sam23 on Feb 12, 2009 1:08 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I am also schizophrenic in this regard – as a fan I want my team to play well (hence my statement re hoping you are right), but I also want them to lose and get the best draft pick possible so my perfect scenario is GSW piles up moral victories on the way to increasing their draft position, package that pick with a veteran swing-man (ideally not Ellis) and get the legit PF we all know we need to be a playoff team next year

This is what it means to be a Warriors fan. You even go so far as to hope the team trades away the “promising young talent” before he truly becomes a Warrior… sigh.

You are the quintessential Warriors fan. I feel sorry for both of us.

"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0

by Dubs fan in Boston on Feb 12, 2009 1:57 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

as for trading away promising talent, I’d take the chance if we have the opportunity to land a legit PF and get to the playoffs – and do so gladly … we have more than our fair share of promising young players on this roster and there’s no guarantee that any of them “truly becomes a Warrior” that can lead us to the playoffs (unless of course you mean another shoot-first, defend-never tweener guard) . … If you want to pity anyone, pity the poor fools who consistently fool themselves and others into believing we just have to wait and be patient for our young potential all stars to develop – I for one am done waiting patiently and muddling along as we have been. This “quintessential Warrior fan” was elated we made the playoffs, as most of us would like to do. Frankly, I don’t think I’m quintessential anything on GSoM based on the views expressed here. We aren’t making the playoffs this season, the next best option is to have the best pick we can possibly get for the long term health of the team. If we have to trade it or not to land the PF makes not a wit of difference to me. And whether or not that’s quintessential, it makes sense to me – a whole lot more sense than being satisfied with the past dozen or so games …

by hardcore on Feb 12, 2009 4:14 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Truly becoming a Warrior

Means becoming one of many in the string unfulfilled hope. I pity us for having to root for such a consistently crappy team. Of course we were elated when they made the playoffs… we thought (naively) that the worst was over, the Warriors were no longer “The Warriors” (read: really bad basketball team).

Fine, you’re right. Most Warriors fans are too stupid to understand the reality of their situation. You’re the quintessential enlightened Warriors fan.

If you can find a “legit PF” that we can grab for Monta & change, let me know when to get excited. I just don’t think it’ll happen. We’ll likely have to watch Monta never really come back from his injury and deal with so many “Man, if only Monta hadn’t… we’d have been so good.” comments from the masses, only to know inside that it was fated never to happen because Monta was a true Warrior and was destined for failure one way or another. His only hope is to be traded.

"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0

by Dubs fan in Boston on Feb 13, 2009 7:13 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Let's pick up Baron (20 assists tonight)

Don’t get suckered into thinking the Warriors are any good. Utah played down to the Warriors level and the Knicks game was horrible to watch. Not one ounce of defense on display. It was like watching a pick-up game. And the Clippers even beat the Knicks tonight. Until we get a decent PG (Baron) and maybe a real power forward, we will be as we were pre-Baron, mediocre at best.

by tig8 on Feb 11, 2009 11:26 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Rec'd this post

5-5 in the nba is something to build on. This is a whole new team, brand new dynamic, players are learning each others hot spots. A better barometer will be when 100% of the team is healthy. After that, we can write the book on the Warriors. Either way, I want the team to SUCCEED.

The team w/Monta is encouraging. You cannot hold your breath and expect a trip to the nba finals. It takes time. Let’s see how this thing plays out. The team can play well together and be a 6-7 seed. After that, an addition here/there and the team could be a 5-4 seed. You build your team, you create an expectation to win, and it breeds confidence. Can the warriors, night in and night out, put together some winning streaks and be better than a 500 team? In ten games w/Monta at about 50% effective, they have indeed been able to do this. Glass is half full, even for angry bitter warriors fan such as myself. Admit it.

"They can trade me," Bonds said. "I don't think they will, though. It's not like I want to be traded, man. I'm a Giant. I'm stuck here till the end."

by GameSix on Feb 12, 2009 12:55 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

The problem is

No team is ever 100% healthy. That is a total fluke when it occurs.

If we have to be 100% healthy to be a 6-8th place team in the West we have to make changes and might as well make them now while Amare and Bosh are on the table.

There are teams in the West who are title contenders when they are 80% healthy (Lakres, Spurs, Utah-not feeling the Rockets so far)

Anyone who thinks we should sit back and just watch what happens is fooling himself and dont even think Nellie/Rowell/etc are honestly interested in doing this. They say it to make us happy while they try to wheel and deal every player on the roster behind the scenes.

by warriorsvictim on Feb 12, 2009 3:18 PM PST reply actions 1 recs

Yes what you say is true. But who is hurt has alot to do with it.

All team have injuries but say the Lakers lose Kobe or Cleveland Lebron, then they would be a sub .500 team also. As fara s Bosh is concerned. Where has he led Toronto? What is their record? Amare is a stud who hates playign defense and rebounds like he’s an off guard. I can hear all the bitching and moaning if he was traded here about his rebounding and lack of real thoughness and hustle.

by dungeness crabdribble on Feb 12, 2009 4:07 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Whoa.

How did I miss this thread? Some mighty fine scuffling going on here.

I have nothing of substance to add, except that in the case of the People of GSoM (sam, Gamesix, DFiB et al.) v. onlxn, it sure looked to me like onlxn kicked everyone’s ass and took names. He was basically Uma Thurman at the end of Kill Bill 2, only without even a Lucy Liu to make his life difficult at the end. The carcasses of like 50 bullheaded, half-assed anecdotal arguments (all of which seem to boil down to “if so and so has a bigger name he must be better, you dummy!”) lie in pools of blood on the danceroom floor.

Brandan Wright ≥ LaMarcus Aldridge. Book it. There’s not a shred of empirical evidence that says otherwise. And onlxn didn’t even have to bring up the fact that BW is over 2 years younger.

And for DFiB, I’ll add another: Kelenna Azubuike ≥ Jamal Crawford or Steven Jackson. Hide the women (except for Shells) and the children…

Thing 1

by Sleepy Freud on Feb 12, 2009 8:53 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

I was wondering when you and jae would show up

Still waiting on jae to show up and sway the momentum one way or another with some crazy stat I never wouldve thought applicabale until he points it out……

I’m still not totally convinced Aldridge>Wright. Aldridge is the starting PF and one of the top 4 players (at worst) on an elite western conference team. Wright collects DNP-CD’s fairly regularly for one of the worst teams in the west. I think its a case of numbers being a bit misleading. Heres the evidence onxln provided-
http://ballhype.com/story/love_and_mathematics_pt_2_the_paul_millsap_quandary/

I have 2 MAJOR issues with this statistical evidence-
1. If you look at the distribution graph its really too scattered to make a true line of linear regression which they went ahead and made anyway. And…..
2. 70% of the players who get more minutes see their PER’s increase……buuuuuuuut (and heres the big kicker) players who arent good wont sustain an increase in minutes. So if a player with a misleading PER in limited minutes sees a temporary increase in minutes and his PER decreases he’ll soon lose his increase in minutes and thus not show up. So the only players represented in these statistics will be guys who maintain an increase in minutes by playing at, above or slightly below their level of production in limited minutes. It seems like this a pretty obvious and HUGE omission that wasnt considered, right?

"It’s a hobby of mine. Kind of like collecting your fingernail clippings or pooping in jars." -olympic mike

by sam23 on Feb 12, 2009 10:08 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

It was completely considered. They only looked at players whose minutes increased out of sheer necessity — players who had to step in case of injuries, trades, etc, guys whose minutes would have to stay high no matter how they did. Guys like Mikki Moore. Those guys play better when they play more — not well, necessarily, but better.

And I am not contending Wright > Aldridge. I am contending that it’s really, really close. And if it’s close, shouldn’t we think about starting our guy?

by onlxn on Feb 12, 2009 10:57 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

thats still not exactly controlling the study though. The minutes arent just going to be handed one guy and then locked in. When a guy goes down its very rare that a team plugs in a Milsap type who simply takes all of the injured player’s minutes. Usually the coach will juggle the lineup for a while and then run out the lineup that he feels is best able to make up for the injured players’ absence. Its still the same problem just a little better disguised.

"It’s a hobby of mine. Kind of like collecting your fingernail clippings or pooping in jars." -olympic mike

by sam23 on Feb 12, 2009 11:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I <3 Sleepy...

and I <3 onlxn.

Your post made me laugh because I wandered in here today and thought pretty much the same thing. I have noticed that all of us who perhaps have a slightly unhealthy addiction to per 36min stats all love Wright, and all the per game guys don’t really see what all the fuss is about. I don’t have anything against Nellie but I am convinced that Wright is getting a bad break here. The sample size of his minutes keeps growing and his stats keep holding up and I just don’t see anything on the court that justifies his limited minutes. Don’t get me wrong, the guys not perfect, he’s not our franchise savior, but he should be playing much more than he has been (before the injury of course).

I can of course appreciate DFIB’s and Sam’s skepticism. I did like the fat list of PF’s that are better than Wright which seemed to bring onlxn back down to earth a bit. When it was all said and done I think it’s safe to say that despite his limited minutes Wright is “solid”.

Sleepy, on the point of Buike, Crawford and Jack, I was recently thinking “Dang, Jackson really is better than I give him credit for. 30pts 10ast 11reb. This guy can flat out play.” Then someone on the broadcast team snapped me back to reality by saying saying something along the lines of “He’s been shooting the ball so well lately that he’s creeping up over 40%”… oh yeah he’s still Stephen Jackson.

Buike isn’t as much of a “do everything” kind of guy but dang, he really does what he does pretty well. Plus I’ve never seen him take a defensive play off to have a “conversation” with the refs.

On the topic of this whole “Millsap doctrine” I’ll have to be honest and say that I haven’t had the spare time or brain-power lately to dive into it, but having seen both Jae and onlxn (my two favorite users who’s names I’m not quite sure how to pronounce in my head) cite this idea I’ll go ahead and give it the benefit of the doubt for now.

BTW
I <3 DFIB
I <3 Sam

Thing 2

by olympicmike on Feb 13, 2009 12:16 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

well

I hope you guys are right about Wright. And I am impressed with the Milsap doctrine, I just dont trust it reliability quite yet. (see Diogu, Ike) Mike, I’m curious, would you or Sleepy really not swap Wright for Aldridge if they had identical contracts?

"It’s a hobby of mine. Kind of like collecting your fingernail clippings or pooping in jars." -olympic mike

by sam23 on Feb 13, 2009 1:21 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Good question...

I’d like to see Wright play in a starters role with a longer leash before I made that decision but I guess that not being able to see that is kind of the point.

If I’m picking a team to play today I’d probably take Aldridge, but Wright has shown me enough to think that he should end up being as good and could very well end up better. I think I’ll sleep on this one.

Sleepy?

Thing 2

by olympicmike on Feb 13, 2009 1:50 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I think Wright gets a short shrift

Because he does do a lot of the same things that Biedrins does. He doesn’t stretch the floor, which is important for the rest of our offense. Then when he makes stupid rookie mistakes, Nellie yanks him. Yes, he does good things, yes, he’s very solid at times. But if you’re playing Tecmo Hockey, you’ve got to make a team of fat, skinny, and average guys… they can’t all be the same type or it doesn’t work.

If you’re seriously bent on getting Brandan Wright more minutes, show me a realistic minute/game break down.

Does Wright deserve more PT? Yes, his number do suggest that. Turiaf deserves more PT just as much as Wright, IMO. And if you ask a lot of people around here, so do Biedrins, Belinelli, Randolph, Morrow, and Kelenna. Now we’ve got Monta back to take even more minutes away from the end of the bench. At some point, you have to admit that there are only so many minutes in a game. Stephen Jackson does need to give up a few minutes a game, or he’s going to burn out. But that’s only like 5 minutes a game… split between 5 guys. You want to take Biedrins out some more? How is this going to work? Show me.

"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0

by Dubs fan in Boston on Feb 13, 2009 7:32 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

No question, there’s a minutes crunch. But I don’t think limiting the court time of our few capable frontcourt players is the answer. (I agree that Turiaf deserves more PT too, but he fouls too much to stay on the court for long. Wright’s much more disciplined about avoiding fouls.)

The backcourt glut really is pretty comical. For instance, I think this would work nicely…

PG: Monta Ellis (30), C.J. Watson (18)
SG: Kelenna Azubuike (30), Anthony Morrow (18)
SF: Stephen Jackson (30), Corey Maggette (18)
PF: Brandan Wright (28), Corey Maggette (12), Ronny Turiaf (8)
C: Andris Biedrins (32), Ronny Turiaf (16)

…but that involves zero minutes for Crawford, Marco and Randolph. Those are the three rotation guys that strike me as the least effective — nothing Crawford does offensively makes up for his defense, and Marco was already starting to tail off before he got hurt — but it wouldn’t be realistic or smart to simply bench them.

It’s a team that could really use a trade to lighten the bench. Unfortunately, I don’t think that’s a type of trade that other teams find particularly appealing.

by onlxn on Feb 13, 2009 9:01 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

We're long on sorta kinda solid guys

Short on stars and really solid guys.

It’s a team that could really use a trade to lighten the bench. Unfortunately, I don’t think that’s a type of trade that other teams find particularly appealing.

100% accurate. We’re not going to be able to move from Jamal to a better player by throwing in a Marco because neither Jamal or Marco are really all that valuable. We could cycle at best. We might be able to get Jamison for Turiaf and Jackson or something, but that doesn’t really make us better.

We have too many guys who “deserve” minutes and not enough to go around. Marco should be dominating D-League, but instead he’s riding pine because he think’s he’s too good for D-League.

"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0

by Dubs fan in Boston on Feb 13, 2009 9:17 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Yep. Really, we’re probably going to need to give someone a Randolph or a (healthy) Wright to get a trade done. But how will those guys have any value if they can’t get consistent minutes to showcase themselves? (I don’t actually think Randolph would look good with extended minutes, but at least we’d be demonstrating that the team’s high on him.)

It’ll be really interesting to see if the team can leverage anything out of this weird depth of semi-decent swingmen. It’s just not a type of player that teams feel the need to trade for.

by onlxn on Feb 13, 2009 9:22 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

We’re long on sorta kinda solid guys, short on stars and really solid guys.

I think we can all agree there. Thats the fundamental problem with this team. And sadly onlxn is totally right about other teams not wanting to deal a star for our depth is also accurate. It is encouraging to hear that we were in on the Bosh and Amare discussions so apparently management recognizes this as well.

"It’s a hobby of mine. Kind of like collecting your fingernail clippings or pooping in jars." -olympic mike

by sam23 on Feb 13, 2009 11:00 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Because he does do a lot of the same things that Biedrins does. He doesn’t stretch the floor, which is important for the rest of our offense.

Yep, I think this is the biggest reason his minutes are limited, for sure. Nellie doesn’t like having two non-shooters on the floor.

Two points, though:

1) It’s not at all clear that we play any worse when Wright and Biedrins are in together… they’ve actually played together fairly well. Our offensive rebounding goes from good to great, our scoring efficiency stays high, and our defense always profits from having two bigs out there (not surprisingly). This isn’t statistical evidence, but if you watch Wright on offense, he moves and sets picks more energetically than anyone on the team besides Turiaf. It may not be Nellie’s style, but Biedrins and Wright have looked like an effective combo, when they’ve gotten the chance.

2) There are 17 minutes a game when Biedrins is not playing. At those times, Wright would be something of a godsend for the offense… if you can have an efficient, skilled layup-and-putback guy on the floor at all times, it’s a plus. If he wanted, Nellie could start Biedrins and Turiaf, then give Biedrins a spell, move Turiaf to the 5 and bring in Wright. That’s presuming that Ronny can stay on the court for extended minutes, which is by no means a given, but it’d at least give Wright consistent minutes without offending Nellie’s delicate spacing sensibilities.

by onlxn on Feb 13, 2009 9:09 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Hummm...

Brandan Wright gets 17 minutes a game, and Biedrins is on the bench for 17 minutes a game… coincidence?

Well, certainly not completely, but yeah, I bet Wright does indeed get most of his PT when Biedrins is on the floor. I don’t have the 1337 skills to track down the exact breakdown, but I’m sure others do and have. Whatever.

I’m sure Wright will blow up as soon as he sets foot back on the court and then we’ll all be really excited because instead of my proclaimed “2-3 solid big men” we’ve got “3 solid big men”!!! Woo!!! I’m glad we got that settled. Get rid of the “2-” you friking idiot of an OP!!!!

"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0

by Dubs fan in Boston on Feb 13, 2009 9:34 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, I don’t quite know how to track all his minutes either, but according to 82games, the five lineups Wright’s appeared in the most have all included Biedrins. While I agree with you that Nellie’s dislike of Wright probably has to do with spacing concerns, that’s not really reflected in Wright’s usage. It just seems like Nellie uses him when he feels absolutely forced to use two bigs. Or, just… whenever.

by onlxn on Feb 13, 2009 9:58 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Playing time...

Not to jump into the middle of this again but I see you did ask me a question

At some point, you have to admit that there are only so many minutes in a game. Stephen Jackson does need to give up a few minutes a game, or he’s going to burn out. But that’s only like 5 minutes a game… split between 5 guys. You want to take Biedrins out some more? How is this going to work? Show me.

Well I, like everyone else, have my own pet line-up that I would play if I were coaching but I’ll go ahead and give you a variation of Nellie’s line-up that would accomplish my biggest goal of getting Wright more time on the court.

PG: Monta (32) / Crawford (16)
SG: Crawford (14) / Jackson (16) / Buike (18)
SF: Jackson (18) / Maggette (18) / Buike (12)
PF: Wright (27) / Maggette (13) / Turiaf (8)
C: Andris (31) / Turiaf (17)

(My Min) Actual Min.

Monta (32) 32
Crawford (30) 38
Jackson (34) 40
Buike (30) 30
Maggette (31) 33
Wright (27) 17
Turiaf (25) 20
Andris (31) 31

This is just an outline of a basic 8-man rotation to work from. When you factor in fouls and injury we’d still be seeing some Morrow and CJ but I think you get the idea.

This would get Wright on the court for much more of the game and if Turiaf can stay out of foul trouble he could get a minute bump too. It would allow us to stay away from small-ball out of “necessity” and only use it when it gives us a distinct advantage.

I’d love to get Morrow into the game more and further limit Crawford’s minutes but I was trying to be somewhat realistic. I know it’s easy to say well there just aren’t enough minutes to go around, and that’s totally true, but I think that when you combine our lack of depth up front with Wright’s production in limited minutes he is the first guy that deserves a bump in minutes.

The fact is we’ve got bigger fish to fry than this (the roster is just flat out poorly put together) but this is an easy fix that I think would make us a better team and greatly increase Wright’s value if we do decide to move him and a wing player (+ draft pick?) for a better big man.

Thing 2

by olympicmike on Feb 13, 2009 1:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

That all looks well and good

But it leaves zero time for CJ, Belinelli, and Randolph. And if you’re Don Nelson and you’re trying to win every game. You’re sitting there and playing against the Thunder with a small lead your trying to hold at the end of the 3rd quarter. Do you A) Keep your best lineup out there, or B) Keep to the minute schedule.

The Warriors have never been in a situation like the Spurs, Lakers, or Celtics where they can afford to give a game away to keep people’s minutes down. Every game is a must win.

The roster isn’t that poorly put together. Yes, we’re a little light on big men and we’re missing a PG. But Nellieball doesn’t really need a stud PG, it needs scorers & ball handlers, both of which we have lots of. And we’re not as light on bigs as we were in the past: Biedrins/Harrington/Wright (Rookie) vs. Biedrins/Turiaf/Wright (Sophomore), big difference. We’re still a “Run & Gun” team, that’s not going to change.

We just need to get healthy. Yes, every team has injuries and Corey Maggette is a little injury prone, but not every team has injuries like we’ve had. We’ve had it bad this season, no matter how you play it. And we’re a team that doesn’t have a lot of experience playing together, so always having a different group of guys healthy hurts even more because they’re ALWAYS going through a “learning to play together” phase.

Be patient. The run is coming. We’ll get excited in the off season, then they’ll pull the rug out from under us again. You’ll see.

"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0

by Dubs fan in Boston on Feb 13, 2009 1:35 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Couple things...

But it leaves zero time for CJ, Belinelli, and Randolph. And if you’re Don Nelson and you’re trying to win every game. You’re sitting there and playing against the Thunder with a small lead your trying to hold at the end of the 3rd quarter. Do you A) Keep your best lineup out there, or B) Keep to the minute schedule.

First of all, as I said earlier this is just an outline (an outline that doesn’t look much different than the actual line-up) so each game would be different. I’m not saying that this exact distribution of minutes will fix everything. My point was that While you seem to think getting Wright more minutes is very difficult to do I don’t agree. I think it can be done quite easily.

As far as CJ, Bellineli and Randolph go they would obviously get some time here and there but like you said, you can’t have all 12 guys play every night. Wright is better than all three of those guys and he plays a position of weakness so, yes, he deserves the minutes more.

The roster isn’t that poorly put together.

I guess it depends on your definition of “that poorly” is. We have way too many wings. Some are young and promising. Some are older and overpaid. Some are good and reasonably paid. But there are just too many. We are weak at PG and PF. I don’t think it’s the end of the world or anything, but it clearly needs some tweaking IMO.

Don’t get me wrong, I agree with your assessment that there is reason to feel optimistic moving forward. We have obviously been seeing some better basketball since Monta has been back. I mostly dropped in to comment on the Wright debate.

We just need to get healthy.

To be a .500 team? Maybe a bit better than .500? I agree that we would be much better if healthy but I don’t really think it speaks to the issue of Wright and his ability to make the team better by getting more minutes.

I think you are kind of talking around my point here. Have you really given me any arguments for Wright not to play more? Limiting the minutes of Marco, CJ and Randolph? is that it?

Are we arguing or is this another time where you are actually agreeing with me and I just can’t tell? =P

All I was trying to say is that Wright should play more. I don’t think it would be so hard to do. I think it would make us a better team. Pretty simple really.

Be patient. The run is coming. We’ll get excited in the off season, then they’ll pull the rug out from under us again. You’ll see.

Haha. Yeah, I’ve been preparing myself emotionally ever since Monta came back.

Thing 2

by olympicmike on Feb 13, 2009 2:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

The reality is that almost every single game is like my hypothetical situation

If the game is close, Nelson is going to try to win it. Nelson also likes the smallball and players who space the floor. There is always a reason for Nelson to not put Wright in. That’s what I think drops Wright’s minutes by about 20% of how often Nellie might want to play him.

Have you really given me any arguments for Wright not to play more?

No, not really. I’m giving some reasoning why he isn’t playing, not why he shouldn’t be.

"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0

by Dubs fan in Boston on Feb 15, 2009 2:43 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Haha

I already know the reason he isn’t (Nelson). But thanks I guess. =P

Thing 2

by olympicmike on Feb 15, 2009 7:44 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

And I’ll defer to the 1200 win coach who sees these guys in practice, knows exactly what mistakes these guys are making, and knows what the team is trying to do, rather that all of us watching from our couches/arena seats who has no idea what kind of defensive rotations people are supposed to make or what’s going on at practice… He certainly has his flaws, as does anybody, but Nelson is the one who actually knows what’s really going on out there, we don’t.

"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0

by Dubs fan in Boston on Feb 16, 2009 6:41 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Fair enough...

As you know, I’m not one to second guess the guy but i don’t agree with him on this one.

Thing 2

by olympicmike on Feb 16, 2009 10:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

oxln's assertion that Brandan Wright is a "solid starting PF" has been completely debunked

There are at least 25-30 players better than him. End of story. See the above list. If you want to talk about Aldridge, sure, he might not be that great, but Josh Smith, Carlos Boozer, Paul Milsap, Brandan Bass, etc. are. We could do much better than Brandan Wright at PF. Thus, he counts as a solid 3rd big man, along with Turiaf (who might be changing a few minds recently). Nobody was trying to say that Brandan Wright sucks, or that he’s worthless. He’s just not the “solid starting PF” that you and oxln want to believe. Either that or you read that part of the thread wrong.

As for Kelenna vs. Jamal, meh, whatever. Stephen Jackson is better than both of them. Cite evidence. Let’s let Kelenna run the offense for a while and see how many turnovers he has. Let Kelenna handle the ball all the time instead of waiting for corner 3s. Then let’s talk about how great Kelenna is vs. Jackson.

"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0

by Dubs fan in Boston on Feb 13, 2009 7:20 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs

Brandon Bass? He looks more “power forward-y”, but he doesn’t rebound more, he scores less efficiently, he turns it over more, and he also makes a lot of mistakes on defense. Wright > Bass.

by onlxn on Feb 13, 2009 8:48 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Does indeed rebound more, albeit not that much

Bass: 4.4REB in 19.8 Min – 8.12Reb/36
Wright: 3.7REB in 16.9 Min – 7.97Reb/36

Still scores pretty efficiently while actually having a jump shot.

Bass this year: 327 shots, 424 points – 1.30 PPS
Wright this year: 295 shots, 395 points – 1.34 PPS

Bass & Wright are about even in my book, but I’d still take Bass for his offensive versatility, and so would Nellie and a lot of the rest of the NBA. It’s still very, very close.

"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0

by Dubs fan in Boston on Feb 13, 2009 9:11 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Feh. Wright outrebounded Bass by a much larger margin than that last year, admittedly in limited time. No reason to give Bass a real edge there.

It’s reasonable to prefer Bass, but this…

and so would Nellie and a lot of the rest of the NBA.

…is not really an argument. Nobody’s trying to trade for either guy, and if you ask me, a lot of people would prefer the shot-blocker who scores more efficiently, versatility be damned. Let’s stick to what we think of these players, not what we think other people think of them.

by onlxn on Feb 13, 2009 9:18 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

If you're taking the whole picture

Wright is younger and less experienced, so if he’s performing close to or at Bass’ level, he’s a more promising player in the long run. Plus he has much more longupsidepotential.

"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0

by Dubs fan in Boston on Feb 13, 2009 9:22 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Yep. I wouldn’t trade Wright for Bass.

To be clear: I don’t think Wright has star potential. I’m not contending that there’s an All-Star waiting to come out of him… I don’t know that he’ll ever rebound or score enough to be a star.

But he has the tools to be an extremely effective complementary player — the third or fourth-best guy on a playoff team. And he’s already been playing that way, especially on offense. That’s nothing to sneeze at, when you’re 19-35.

by onlxn on Feb 13, 2009 9:26 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

And he’s already been playing that way

This where you’re wrong. If there are 25 better players at his position, he’d be a below average, or non-playoff worthy, starting PF. If he’s not even worthy of starting on a playoff team, how’s he supposed to be the 3rd or 4th best player? Show me one playoff team that only has 3 players better than Brandan Wright.

Cleveland, maybe, but LBJ is a singular talent. I could be a rotation player on that team and we’d still make the playoffs. Dallas, both of the Jasons are still better than BWright. Milwaukee, at under 0.500, still has 3-4 players better than BWright and another 3-4 at his level.

Look, BWright is indeed a very interesting prospect. But he’s not there yet. He’s making progress and can be useful on the court, but he’s not great yet.

"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0

by Dubs fan in Boston on Feb 13, 2009 10:38 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

You’ve conceded that he’s about at LaMarcus Aldridge’s level, right? Isn’t Aldridge the third or fourth-best player on a playoff team?

Wright doesn’t have to improve his offense one whit to be a top-four contributor to a playoff team. PER is a flawed stat, but it encapsulates offense pretty decently. Hollinger, for some reason, lists Wright as a SF — he is the fifth-highest ranked SF in the league, above Melo, Caron Butler, Gerald Wallace and Paul Pierce. If added to the PF listings, he’d rate as the 13th best in the league, ahead of Lee, Aldridge and David West, among others. He rates as better than a lot of guys who get All-Star votes.

Defense? He’s flawed, but so are a lot of guys. David Lee’s a better defensive rebounder, but doesn’t protect the basket and makes just as many mistakes… Aldridge makes fewer mistakes, but is similarly mediocre on the defensive glass, and also doesn’t block or affect shots like Wright. Neither guy is clearly a better defender than Wright. There frankly isn’t much statistical evidence at all to suggest that Wright’s a weak defender. My sense is that he’s weaker than his numbers, but he’s certainly not terrible… if anything, I gave him too little defensive credit when comparing him to your list of other guys.

As I (poorly) indicated in my previous post, I’m not entirely convinced that Wright could be the third or fourth-best player on a playoff team right now… his defense needs some work. But he’s not nearly as bad there as some people here seem to think. And offensively, he just has to maintain what he’s currently doing. It’s not a guarantee that he would, but as has been discussed ad nauseam, there’s no particular reason to think he wouldn’t.

by onlxn on Feb 13, 2009 1:53 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

There frankly isn’t much statistical evidence at all to suggest that Wright’s a weak defender

defense is pretty damn hard to analyze statistically.

"It’s a hobby of mine. Kind of like collecting your fingernail clippings or pooping in jars." -olympic mike

by sam23 on Feb 13, 2009 1:59 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

True. And as I said, I do think there are some weaknesses in Wright’s defense that the numbers don’t capture.

But he does block a lot of shots without fouling much, he does get a decent number of steals for a big man, and while his defensive rebounding numbers are disappointing, they’re not awful. Those numbers don’t capture everything, but they do capture some important things. Wright is not a terrible defender.

by onlxn on Feb 13, 2009 2:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I frankly think you'll find more people who are down on Biedrins than Wright

You’ve got that “Everybody hates us” motivational thing down.

The fact that he’s ranked higher in some statistical measure than Paul Pierce suggests that the statistical measure is deeply flawed and that any data from that statistical measure can be readily ignored.

If your assertion is that he could one day become such a thing, sure, I’ll buy that. But right now, he’s not.

As for the Blazers, they’re the exception. I don’t know how they’ve pulled it off. Aldridge could be anywhere between the second best player on their team and the 6th. He gets the most minutes because they don’t have anybody else at his position except for Channing Frye. Oden and Przibilla are both much better rebounders (at 15 and 17 Reb/48 respectively, both in the top 10 in the league), Steve Blake has a nice 3.0 A:T ratio (also top 10), and others are contributing as well. They’re just a well rounded team, I bet the struggle in the playoffs when their opponents start shortening their rotations and they can’t.

"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0

by Dubs fan in Boston on Feb 13, 2009 3:02 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

The fact that he’s ranked higher in some statistical measure than Paul Pierce suggests that the statistical measure is deeply flawed and that any data from that statistical measure can be readily ignored.

Agree on the first part, disagree on the second.

The ten best players in the league by PER, in order: LeBron, CP3, Wade, Howard, Duncan, Kobe, Boozer, Roy, Yao, Jefferson. That’s not a bad list. I think the first six guys probably are the six best guys in the league right now. Below them, it’s a little muddled… I don’t think Al Jefferson is the 10th best player in the league. But he’s one of the top 20 or 30, isn’t he?

The top six power forwards by PER: Duncan, Boozer, Dirk, Bosh, Pau, KG. Pretty reasonable, right? Seventh is Marreese Speights, and maybe the system’s flat-out wrong there… but the guy’s playing pretty damn well. I don’t think Speights is better than Jamison, Villanueva and Amare, but at the very least, Speights is pretty damn interesting, and the Sixers are increasing his minutes as a result.

PER isn’t the gospel. Paul Pierce is much better than Brandan Wright, and nobody’s saying otherwise. But at the same time, PER is not worthless. If a guy has a terrible PER, he’s probably at least kinda bad, and if a guy has a great PER, he’s probably at least kinda good. Brandan Wright has an extremely good PER over the course of his career. Find me another player like that that isn’t pretty good.

by onlxn on Feb 13, 2009 4:12 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I might have been a little strong...

It’s not completely worthless. I take that back. Brandan is interesting, but let’s not get ahead of ourselves.

"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0

by Dubs fan in Boston on Feb 15, 2009 2:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

They’re just a well rounded team, I bet the struggle in the playoffs when their opponents start shortening their rotations and they can’t.

not if they can deal Raef’s contract plus a few of their good young pieces (Outlaw, Webster, Sergio, Batum, Frye, Bayless) for a true upgrade at SF. If they could land Caron Butler I think theyd be really really difficult to beat.

"It’s a hobby of mine. Kind of like collecting your fingernail clippings or pooping in jars." -olympic mike

by sam23 on Feb 13, 2009 4:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Well...

Assuming that they’ll move players to improve could be readily applied to any team. They do happen to be in a position to do so, however. We’ll see in the next few weeks.

"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0

by Dubs fan in Boston on Feb 15, 2009 2:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I see Wright..

…developing into more of a Tayshaun Prince type of player…thats not bad at all either

by skeetdanut on Feb 13, 2009 3:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree

As a longtime lurker, I have noticed the lack of objective analysis that has taken place on this site this season. Watching Wright play obviously does not impress me, but a human observer has bias whereas a computer does not. It was quite refreshing to read a fact-based analysis as to why Wright may actually be better than Aldridge (Longhorn, woo hoo!) as opposed to “Wright is better because I think he is”.

That being said, my not-so-well-informed opinion is that stats in basketball are still quite questionable. I would love to see a study (and I would think this has been done) to see how much offensive efficiency and defense-related stats change when a person changes teams. My guess is that these stats are quite volatile as your teammates matter a great deal as to how you perform. If a decent study has been done on this it would be awesome if somebody could link to it. But I believe that basketball stats have not yet reached anywhere near the level of baseball stats, where one can almost predict the exact amount of wins a player should produce. From what I see, they seem to be getting better, but one still can’t say, “That player is about 2 wins below average.”

by Henduland in Texas on Feb 13, 2009 7:46 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

OK, fine

You take Kelenna and BWright, I’ll take SJax and one of Lamar Odom or Luol Deng.

We’ll bet body parts, arms, then legs. We’ll see who looks like this first:

"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0

by Dubs fan in Boston on Feb 13, 2009 10:59 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

may I have Kelenna instead? It's almost Valentine's day....=X

by Shells on Feb 13, 2009 12:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Haha.

Tis but a scratch!!

But hey … how did you get Odom on your team? I thought we were talking about LaMarcus Aldridge.

And Shells: I saw Kelenna first. He’s mine, mine, mine, all mine.

Thing 1

by Sleepy Freud on Feb 13, 2009 1:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

would you seriously consider taking Buike/Wright over Jack/Aldridge?

"It’s a hobby of mine. Kind of like collecting your fingernail clippings or pooping in jars." -olympic mike

by sam23 on Feb 13, 2009 2:01 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I'd definitely seriously consider it.

I don’t get the Aldridge love at all. 49% FG , 6.7 reb and 1.0 blk per 36 minutes from your “power” forward? Talk about “meh.” Basically Aldridge is basking in the glory of a resurgent franchise that’s resurgent because of:

1. A elite or near-elite player in Roy.
2. The perception of being “charmed” that came with landing Oden.
3. The presence of Oden (even as raw and rusty as he is, he’s already a dominant rebounding and defensive presence).
4. Some skilled complementary guys who understand the game and quietly contribute to wins (Blake, Przybilla, Rudy).
5. A coherent and non-schizophrenic rotation of players.
6. (Possibly) the presence of Paul Allen and Nike in Portland.

Give Oakland and the Warriors all those things, and Wright a starting job, and it’s nearly impossible to imagine Wright not putting up equal or better numbers — and basking in equal or better hype.

Oh yeah … and give Wright Ron Artest’s or Leon Powe’s looks while you’re at it.

As for Azubuike v. Jackson. I’m assuming you’re disregarding salary and age, which would make it a no-brainer. Let’s just say they were the same age, and both available for the MLE starting next season. I’m pretty sure I would still take Azubuike. Right, Shells?

Thing 1

by Sleepy Freud on Feb 13, 2009 2:49 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I dont love Aldridge, but I cant see taking Buike/Wright in that 2 on 2 game.

"It’s a hobby of mine. Kind of like collecting your fingernail clippings or pooping in jars." -olympic mike

by sam23 on Feb 13, 2009 4:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I got Odom because he's close to "average starting PF"

Even though he’s a back up… f-ing fakers. If we’re assuming that Aldridge is weak sauce, he’s not “average starting PF” which is what oxln’s assertion was.

"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0

by Dubs fan in Boston on Feb 13, 2009 2:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

baseball is such an individual sport

There is no way stats in basketball will ever reach that level. Players depend on each other too much in the NBA to be able to develop a perfect statistical method. Also, this is complicated by free agency. There are no more teams that stay together for years and years reducing the volatility created by dependency on your teammates.

Let’s face it, whoever you think is better in your heart of hearts is probaby the best player for your team when it comes to hoops. If Wright and Aldridge are that close on paper, but we like Wright more, then there is no reason to even argue the point

by warriorsvictim on Feb 13, 2009 11:00 AM PST reply actions 0 recs