Finding Hope for the Home Team
by hardcore on May 31, 2009 10:23 AM PDT
121 comments
The Billups for AI trade was not the only critical change to shape Denver’s run, and the NYT ran a story on the how the "Revamped Nuggets Have Room for Hope" that chronicled the roster changes that seemingly weakened the team on paper yet left them strong enough to contend for the WC. In that story, we may find some solace – even some hope for our own woebegone Warriors.
Last summer Denver traded Marcus Camby in what was widely described as a salary dump that weakened their team. But waiting in the wings were Nene and Anderson – who both just completed the best seasons in their career and would seem to have several very productive seasons in front of them. Could we dare to hope that the opportunity for both Wright and Randolph to shine similarly will transpire for GSW?
The Nuggets’ shelves were not barren – obviously Carmelo is a dynamic if over-hyped scorer, KMart is still an effective albeit not as explosive PF as he once was. Monta is our dynamic scorer, Jackson our effective though not as explosive veteran. JR Smith refined his game just a bit to be a most effective 6th man during the portions of the WCF – could not Crawford or Maggette serve that purpose for us? Our self isn’t empty, but some reorganization is in order. Moving Monta to the PG is a gamble – but any less of a gamble than sending AI out for Billups?
via nimg.sulekha.com
Will a Monta-Jackson-Maggette lineup be able to handle defensive pressure? We have depth behind them if all three can play 30-35 a night for most of the season. If JR Smith can tone down his act a bit and become a force off the bench, might not Crawford – who’s uniformly described as a good teammate and class act – similarly be able to come off the bench for firepower? KAz has more than proven his worth, and Morrow and Marco have shown flashes – either might contribute more off the bench next year.
Even without Camby, the Denver frontline battled admirably against LAL – will a frontline of AB, Turiaf, Wright, and Randolph be able to do likewise? Do we add one more capable veteran to deepen that position – yes. We still need more beef up front to hope to compete in the West.
And of course AI was sent out for Billups – giving up some scoring for leadership, defense and the all too often cited but impossible to quantify – chemistry. Though hard to quantify the attitude change on the Nuggets after that trade was hard to miss and well documented both in the Colorado press and noticed nationally. Where does that change come from for our club? An new, veteran PF? A new Coach?? The latter is coming around the corner – a season away perhaps, but coming.
I’ve been a glass is half empty fan for a long time, annoyingly so to be sure, and advocated for trading Ellis or Randolph for a chance to land Bosh or another quality big. But the WC is not going to remain the juggernaut it currently is forever and maybe not for long. Last season New Orleans was at the top, only to drop precipitously; San Antonio is aging, Phoenix was not reborn despite a roster that on paper looked potent, Dallas is in flux, Portland is going through growing pains, and Utah could be severely weakened this offseason. As for LAL, Odom may return but they could lose Ariza and at some point Jackson will crawl into a Buddhist cave somewhere and align with the Zen masters who levitate into a celestial plane. Anyway, after watching the Nuggets emerge as a force to be reckoned with I began to think maybe ….
Obviously the Warriors and Nuggets benefited from their momentum and caught teams by surprise in their respective recent playoff runs. Maybe Denver comes crashing back to earth the way GSW did after it’s two years prior to this past one. But we have some pieces, the cupboard is not bare. A tweak that works to put every one into a better position (Monta to PG?), a trade (for a vet PF? PG?), some attitude adjustment (defense?) and talented young players taking advantage of the opportunity (Wright? Randolph? Morrow?) all could mean we might just have some hope. See ya around the draft.
This FanPost is a submission from a member of the mighty Golden State of Mind community. While we're all here to throw up that W, these words do not necessarily reflect the views of the GSoM Crew. Still, chances are the preceding post is Unstoppable Baby!
5 recs |
121 comments
Email
Print
Comments
great article
this is why i want jrue holiday over brandon jennings
jennings is like BD whose gonnna be happy uptempo while holiday straight up said im a leader on the floor and sttuff, he said he looked to pass a little too much, while jennings sees himself as a scoring PG but he cant shoot
he is the next chauncy billups
by gswfan2 on May 31, 2009 10:33 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Jennings is a pass-first point guard with great open court vision. Holiday, on the other hand, is a combo guard and isn’t even a point guard to begin with. Jennings can shoot. He has good mechanics on his silky-smooth shot and is only 19 years old, so it’s going to get better.
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on May 31, 2009 10:41 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
dude jennings said himself
in this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIEwQvw-wwg
or this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZjqkhGE37M
and holiday said himself hes a point
by gswfan2 on May 31, 2009 11:15 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
first one
he said he has to get his teamates involved more out there and hope it changes once he goes into thee pros
by gswfan2 on May 31, 2009 11:18 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Jennings is a true point guard. Holiday is not a true point guard. Jennings is quicker, faster, has more vision in the open court, a better passer, plays with more confidence and has more potential.
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on May 31, 2009 11:40 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
jennings is not a true PG
and ill take lockdown D
we got enough fast quick scorers on the team
by gswfan2 on May 31, 2009 12:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Word, I'm not sure either will be available
Tyreke Evans? He’s my first choice
by myk on May 31, 2009 12:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
One will be there imo.
Jennings and Holiday’s best bet is to be picked by Sacramento at 5. I doubt that Washington takes a PG that’s not named Rubio at #5 to supplant Gil as PG (although moving him to SG should happen eventually). At #6, there is a possibility that Minny takes either Jennings or Holiday if either one drops to them. But they still have Foye (mixed reports on his development, but last I heard they still like him), and the much maligned (By GSOM) Sebastian Telfair. I personally feel that they have a bigger hole at the SG spot than at the PG. McCants and Carney aren’t world beaters. I could definitely see Demar Derozen go here citing one GM said he had the Second most potential in the draft.
That could leave either Jennings or Holiday there when the Warriors pick. If it were up to me and the following players were left in the green room on June 25th: 1. Holiday
2. Jennings
3. Hill
4. Evans
5. Clark
6. Flynn
7. Blair
Warriors, Stupidest franchise in the league.
"It takes a special kind of anti-mojo for a team to miss the playoffs 14 out of 15 seasons. Like, say, the Warriors under Chris Cohan."
by kenntoe on May 31, 2009 1:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
oops...shows how highly i think of him. haha
Warriors, Stupidest franchise in the league.
"It takes a special kind of anti-mojo for a team to miss the playoffs 14 out of 15 seasons. Like, say, the Warriors under Chris Cohan."
by kenntoe on May 31, 2009 3:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
ha, yea how could you forget the McCants for Shelden Williams blockbuster?
Thing A
by sam23 on May 31, 2009 3:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You mean Mr. Candace Parker, Ya know the better basketball player in the family?
Warriors, Stupidest franchise in the league.
"It takes a special kind of anti-mojo for a team to miss the playoffs 14 out of 15 seasons. Like, say, the Warriors under Chris Cohan."
by kenntoe on May 31, 2009 4:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
yea that one. But with Anthony, Candace, and Shelden I bet they have some awesome family hoops games. Anthony is a guy I wouldn’t mind seeing in a Warrior uniform next season.
Thing A
by sam23 on May 31, 2009 4:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
come on, bobby brown was involved in that trade too.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
by cap'n hack on May 31, 2009 9:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Evans....
On ESPN insider, it says his negatives are selfish and bad selection…..
Good thing we don’t have any of those type of guys on our team already…..
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on May 31, 2009 2:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
how is jennings not a true point?
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
by cap'n hack on May 31, 2009 12:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
watch the video link i put u above
he said how in the european system he had to get his teamates involved and stuff and how he hoped it would change when he hits the nba
by gswfan2 on May 31, 2009 12:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
hard to put much stock in interviews; it’s easy to say something stupid like that.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
by cap'n hack on May 31, 2009 12:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
well i mean it comes from jennings himself
and sounds like he has BDs attitude, where hes gonna want to play uptempo
id rather take holiday, wo can play D and whos a leader and sees himself as a PG who can run a team
by gswfan2 on May 31, 2009 12:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Jennings is a true point guard and Holiday is not a “lock-down” defender. He’s a good defender.
Wanting to play an uptempo style isn’t a bad thing. Jennings’ defensive weakness is overblown around here. He does a good job of getting into passing lanes and stays in front of his man.
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on May 31, 2009 1:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
dude..theres a video of jennings himself saying how he wishes it goes back to what it used to be
cause he rahter just play than get his teamates more involved
and you cant just say hes a true point..where sthe proof dog
by gswfan2 on May 31, 2009 5:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Link: http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Brandon-Jennings-1114/
He’s listed as a point guard on three of their position criteria. Also, under the “strength” listings, one of the many is “true point guard.”
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on May 31, 2009 6:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
dude thats draft express
you know unlike my video where it was brandon himself
by gswfan2 on May 31, 2009 7:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Have you seen Jennings play a game? …..not youtube clips, an actual game.
Thing A
by sam23 on May 31, 2009 1:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I can’t tell if that is a reply to me, but no, I haven’t. Missing Barry has seen him play and backed everything I said about Jennings, though, on the “Jennings or Holiday” debate post.
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on May 31, 2009 1:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Missing Barry saw him play in High School, no? It’s more than most, but I don’t know if you can accurately grasp how a guy will fare against NBA competition from watching a couple high school games.
Thing A
by sam23 on May 31, 2009 1:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, I can trust the scouts and their evaluations of Jennings. They speak very, very highly of him and I think it’s for a reason.
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on May 31, 2009 2:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
They certainly don’t all speak highly of him. And plenty of scouts spoke highly of Sebastian Telfair…..lots of people watched him dominate High School games and got excited about him too.
Thing A
by sam23 on May 31, 2009 3:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
They speak highly of his quickness, athleticism, vision in the open court, passing, ability to set up himself and his teammates, getting into the passing lanes defensively, playing with confidence and unlimited potential.
Scouts spoke highly of Sebastian Telfair, but he didn’t have the experience over in Europe that Jennings had. Scouts also spoke highly of LeBron James.
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on May 31, 2009 3:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Find me an NBA player that no scouts spoke highly of. I’m not arguing that Jennings won’t be an NBA player, I’m just saying scouts like him does not equal success.
Thing A
by sam23 on May 31, 2009 4:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, I’m saying he’s a better pick than Holiday.
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on May 31, 2009 4:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
you do know that scouts love Holiday too? If we had to pick one of those two I honestly don’t know which I’d take. I don’t know anything about Jennings other than what the scouting reports say, but I guess I’d go with him as he seems to have more “upside,” and I think much of the Holiday love is derived from Westbrook’s success this year. Westbrook is a much better athlete and a better player than Holiday. At this point I’d take Ty Lawson over either one.
Thing A
by sam23 on May 31, 2009 5:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I also like Holiday and “upside” is the deciding factor between the two as far as I’m concerned, so that’s why I’d take Jennings if I could only give one reason.
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on May 31, 2009 5:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
also
They speak highly of his quickness, athleticism, vision in the open court, passing, ability to set up himself and his teammates, getting into the passing lanes defensively, playing with confidence and unlimited potential.
Those are the exact qualities scouts liked in Telfair. The concerns scouts have about Jennings (size and maturity) are also the exact concerns scouts had about Telfair, and weren’t exactly concerns anyone had with LeBron. I think the importance of size is sometimes overstated, generally really good basketball players don’t fail because of size. But questions about maturity are very concerning. Of the guys with maturity questions entering the NBA more have failed than succeeded. Now some reports (actually I think only one, oft-repeated report) claim he’s grown up a lot overseas. Thats encouraging, but I’m not sold yet. I think how teams feel about him after all the interviews are done will be very telling.
Thing A
by sam23 on May 31, 2009 4:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t think Telfair is a good comparison for Jennings. Jason Terry would be a decent comparison – their body/athleticism is very similar, and the question with Jennings will be does he ever put enough effort into D and develop into a playmaker not just for himself, but for his team? Terry has finally started figuring that stuff out (to a degree), but he’s getting too old to be any more than a role player. If you’re picking Jennings, you’re hoping he figures that stuff out earlier and becomes something of a combination between Tony Parker, Chris Paul and Rajon Rondo.
Early reports from Chad Ford have really painted him in a positive light, essentially claiming he’s matured a lot and has been working hard and improving a lot, including areas of weakness like defense and shooting. If that’s really the type of motivated, mature (for a 19 year old) player he is, he has the potential to be a big time player. Telfair is the absolute worst case scenario, and I really don’t see a situation where he’s that bad.
by Missing Barry on May 31, 2009 4:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Jennings hit less than 25% of his 3’s in Europe. Terry is a career .383 shooter from long range. Jennings shot about 38% form the field overall, Terry is right at 45% for his career. Jennings averaged less than 4 asts per 36 mins in Europe. Terry has average more than 5 for his career. You can’t just pick one of the best combo type guards in the league and say “thats who Jennings is similar to, because I think he’s really good.”
Thing A
by sam23 on May 31, 2009 4:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
“their body/athleticism is very similar, and the question with Jennings will be does he ever put enough effort into D and develop into a playmaker not just for himself, but for his team”
I wasn’t saying coming into the league Jennings is going to be Jason Terry. I was comparing their body and athleticism, while saying Jennings has questions about some of the things that have held Terry back from taking the next step in his career. The most likely scenario is Jennings develops some of his game (for instance, his shooting), but doesn’t become a complete player. That’s essentially been Terry’s career path. So eventually he develops into a player with similar productivity to Terry – though not necessarily the same player.
by Missing Barry on May 31, 2009 5:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe. Terry was much older when he broke into the league and didn’t put up great numbers his rookie year, but it still just kinda seems like you picked one of the best combo guards in the league and tried to figure out how they are similar rather than looking at Jennings and figuring out who he is similar to. Jennings’ pros and cons seem eerily similar to Telfair. I’m not saying he will be as bad as Telfair, Darius Miles was eerily similar to KG coming out of HS and we all know how that turned out. I’m just saying it is, at least, concerning.
Thing A
by sam23 on May 31, 2009 5:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well the same could be said about the Telfair comparisons on the other side. I think Jennings natural abilities are better than Telfair’s (vision, athleticism – not that Telfair isn’t a good athlete himself, playmaking ability), but I do have concerns about his maturity, work ethic, attitude, etc. I trust if he’s available and we pick him it’s because the Warrior’s front office will have had enough of a chance to meet and evaluate him and feel comfortable that he’s answered those questions. I want Jennings, but more than that, I want Jennings to be the player we’ll all be hoping he is if we pick him.
Though maybe I should temper my expectations a bit given my lack of confidence in the Warriors front office/ownership/coaches to do their job well…
by Missing Barry on May 31, 2009 6:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
not saying he can’t be one, but Crawford also said he’s a PG 1st, SG 2nd. Stephen Curry is saying the same thing. most combo guy’s say this b/c they know that at their size, them being PG’s is more appetizing to GM’s. basically it’s a move to increase their desirability.
by the evil monkey on May 31, 2009 11:38 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
too bad the kings are going to pick Jrue……. Bring Jennings to the bay.
by Sinigang on May 31, 2009 11:10 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I hope the Kings make the mistake and take Holiday over Jennings.
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on May 31, 2009 11:11 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
they will Geoff Petrie.
Your a Jerk.
Your a Jerk.
Your a jerk.
I know.
by Sinigang on May 31, 2009 11:24 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Haha
AND it’s the title of the song.
Warriors, Stupidest franchise in the league.
"It takes a special kind of anti-mojo for a team to miss the playoffs 14 out of 15 seasons. Like, say, the Warriors under Chris Cohan."
by kenntoe on May 31, 2009 1:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
haha
Your a Jerk.
Your a Jerk.
Your a Jerk.
I know.
by Sinigang on May 31, 2009 2:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If we can get a good big for Ellis
We need to do it. Small ball is and will never be proven. We need the traditional bang down low and play defense type of mentality. But it won’t happen till the day Don Nelson isn’t the head coach of the Warriors anymore.
Brandon Jennings, Ty Lawson, or Tyreke Evans. A Warrior in 09.
With the 6th Pick in the 2009 MLB Draft, the SF Giants pick Donovan Tate.
Conductor of the We're Back Warrior Movement!
by ejdacanay on May 31, 2009 10:38 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
neither of the teams remaining have that sort of mentality. Sure they have Dwight Howard and Andrew Bynum, but I don’t think you’d say either team really conforms to what you call the “traditional” style of banging down low and play defense. Both teams have one or two great individual defensive players and rely heavily on outside shooting.
Thing A
by sam23 on May 31, 2009 1:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The closest thing left to a “traditional” team was Cleveland and they got thoroughly outplayed by a team that really resembles the Suns teams of several years ago. While Orlando isn’t quite as desperate to get quick shots up as D’Antoni was/is, the 3 pointer is a massive part of their offense and they use a freakishly athletic big surrounded by 4 shooters and a reliance on good ball movement to get good shots with 3’s getting the priority. Don Nelson has noted on numerous occasions that the 3 point shot is becoming a much bigger part of the NBA today because more and more guys are now able to hit it and it is worth, in his words, “half more points.” Say what you will about Nelson’s game management, stubbornness, motivation or disregard for the defensive half of the game, but you can’t say the man doesn’t have a great basketball mind and, while quirky and more than a bit of a gambler, is something of an offensive-scheming genius. Getting 150% as many points is a huge difference. IMO, the problem with the “We Believe” teams and those Suns teams wasn’t so much their lack of defense as is it was that they didn’t rebound well enough. Maybe I’ve just been watching too much of Orlando and not taking Howards freakishness into account enough, but I’m really starting to believe that accurate 3 pt shooting and rebounding are the two biggest keys to winning in today’s NBA. I’ve always felt that a team’s ability to spread the floor and the threat of the 3 on offense played a huge role in their ability to win games and this is kinda similar. Sure it helps tremendously to be able to get a defensive stop when you need it, or to get to be able to get to the line a lot, and having a beast down low opens up a lot of open shots for the rest of the team, but maximizing your number of possessions (via rebounding) and the number of points you get on each possession (by placing the priority on getting a good look from 3) seems like a pretty simple formula for success.
Thing A
by sam23 on May 31, 2009 1:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I once thought the Spurs and Pistons played the most beautiful brand of basketball. But now, after watching Orlando play, I think I have a new favorite. They don’t always move the ball around (Hedo can get greedy at times, and to an extent, Alston). But if they consistently set up Dwight early and often, man that opens up so many shots for their shooters. And also you can’t stress enough that Orlando probably has the best center in the game right now. That’s something that 29 other teams don’t have.
I don’t think the Warriors have the personnel to rebound like Orlando or shoot the 3 as well as Orlando. I think we’d have better success resembling the Nuggets team. They were in the same boat as us defense wise (although I think their rebound rate was a lot better) during the 07-08’ season. But this year they got a whole lot better on defense during the season, possibly as a result of Billiups’ anchoring their team…i can’t say for sure since i really didn’t watch them a lot.
I think we should just keep Monta at the 2. As a full time SG, he’s not a bad playmaker. I’d be down to bring back Baron, as long as its for either Craw + Azu or Maggette. Then draft either a SF like Derozen who can get up and down and play fast with the likes of Monta and Randolph. I’m encouraged with Derozen since in one of his interviews he said he prides himself in defense and taking on the biggest challenge and shutting them down. I think what we need is the players that are willing to play defense and that are coachable. Two years ago we had our defensive mentality—the hectic, scattered defense that seemed to work. But since then we haven’t really played much defense at all. We also need, need, need to defend the Pick n’ Roll better. If there was a stat, i’d predict we were the worst in the league last year (maybe on a PPP level?).
How good can a team with Baron, Monta, Jack, Randolph and Biedrins look with Maggette, Derozen, Wright, Turiaf off the bench? Exciting to say the least, and couldn’t possibly be worse than last years team.
Warriors, Stupidest franchise in the league.
"It takes a special kind of anti-mojo for a team to miss the playoffs 14 out of 15 seasons. Like, say, the Warriors under Chris Cohan."
by kenntoe on May 31, 2009 2:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
actually Denver was 12th in defensive efficiency in 07-08 (106.19 per 100 possessions). 8th last season (103.5 per 100 possessions).
we were 22nd last season, 28th this season…..
copying Denver’s success seems unlikely.
i really wish there was some team out there who is probably going to be a high lottery ball team next year (Sac) who was willing to give us their pick next year unprotected for our #7 pick so that they can use it to trade up for Griffin or Rubio…..
by the evil monkey on May 31, 2009 2:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
technically, Orlando was #1 in defensive efficiency.
Lakers #5.
by the evil monkey on May 31, 2009 2:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
defensive efficiency is very different from “pound the ball inside and play D.”
Thing A
by sam23 on May 31, 2009 2:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
?
don’t they run their offense through Dwight? it looks like they’re running some kind of low post offense for the most part. i assume it’s the same thing SVG ran in Miami. and doesn’t defensive efficiency mean they play good defense? even if you remove pace as a factor, orlando is 6th in the league at 94.4 PA/g (Cavs 91.4 PA/g).
if we define “pound the ball inside & play D” as traditional, how is Cleveland who runs a dribble drive offense w/ Lebron or Mo Will up top and everyone else spread out to shoot 3’s more traditional than Orlando?
i’m going to guess that you also wanted to include slow pace into traditional… even though the pace of the game has actually slowed down dramatically over time. so slow paced teams aren’t really traditional. unless you mean “traditionally since the mid 90s”.
by the evil monkey on May 31, 2009 3:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
No actually they don’t run their offense through Dwight. I know its become cliche because of how many times its been repeated on TNT, but they run their offense outside-in, instead of the more traditional inside-out. They try to use their shooters and the threat of the 3 to set up Dwight, they don’t immediately pound it inside and let Dwight go to work. There is a pretty substantial difference. You were the one who used the term “traditional,” so really this discussion depends on how you define the term. But Orlando runs a pretty unique offense, and if you had to compare it to another good team from the past decade, the Suns would be the most accurate. The Suns are far from most people’s definition of traditional, but if they fit your definition we don’t really disagree.
Thing A
by sam23 on May 31, 2009 4:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
actually it was ejdacanay who used the term traditional.
i’ve missed many of the post season games. but the games i caught of the Magic they went through Dwight in the post early and would switch to a pick & roll offense at crunch time featuring Turkoglu. though this season they seemed to be running more pick & rolls with Jameer/Dwight instead of Turk.
according to Crawford & Al Harrington when they 1st got here, the D’Antoni system is similar to the Warriors. i don’t think the Magic is anything like either. in the 1/2 court D’Antoni’s system looks kind of like UCLA (the system not the school, named after Wooden’s system maybe?)
by the evil monkey on May 31, 2009 5:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
and yea, defensive efficiency DOES mean playing good d, but not its not the most “traditional” measure. When you say pound the rock inside and slow the game down, and say we need to get away from Nelson’s style of play it certainly implies that you want to slow the game down. Defensive efficiency has nothing to do with slowing the game down.
Thing A
by sam23 on May 31, 2009 4:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Defensive efficiency has nothing to do with slowing the game down.
defensive efficiency (vs points allowed per game) has to do with pace. pace is about how fast you play the game. so defensive efficiency has everything to do with whether you’re slowing the game down (to create low scores and look like your playing good defense when you’re really not – what you’re doing is creating less scoring opportunities for the opposition and yourself).
by the evil monkey on May 31, 2009 6:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Defensive efficiency is basically how many points the other team scores on a per possession basis.
by Missing Barry on May 31, 2009 6:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
yeah. that’s how you compensate for pace.
by the evil monkey on May 31, 2009 7:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
?
total points would be higher in an uptempo pace. therefore total points doesn’t account for pace. defensive efficiency does compensate for pace meaning pace does not impact it. Thus d efficiency has little to do with slowing the game down.
Thing A
by sam23 on May 31, 2009 7:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
what i mean is defensive efficiency negates the pace factor and gives you a true measure of how good a defense is versus a team like memphis that just plays a slow pace and therefore has a low points against.
getting sidetracked. getting back to
pound the ball inside and play D
either way Orlando fits both definitions… 6th in points against, 1st in efficiency. so they play great defense. they go to Dwight more than the Cavs go to Z in the low post. and their pace isn’t so far off the Cavs’ to say the Cavs grind and the Magic don’t.
by the evil monkey on May 31, 2009 7:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think you mixed yourself up. Points allowed is impacted by pace, defensive efficiency is not.
Thing A
by sam23 on May 31, 2009 7:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
yeah, i meant how you compensate for pace.
by the evil monkey on May 31, 2009 7:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
so defensive efficiency has everything to do with whether you’re slowing the game down
No. Defensive efficiency is a “per possession” measurement and has absolutely nothing to do with “slowing the game down”. I suppose what you’re saying is “The defensive efficiency stat can be used to ferret out the bad defensive teams that just play really slowly and appear to keep their opponents to low scores.”
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
R Dizzle = Wannabe AB1
by Dubs fan in Boston on Jun 1, 2009 6:36 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
“Technically” doesn’t really apply. “Defensive efficiency” can be calculated a number of different ways. It’s points surrendered per possession. Points is easy. Calculating possessions, not as easy. There are a number of different formulas that arrive at similar, but not identical answers. The biggest difference in them tends to be how FTs are counted, since the number of FTs per possession can change. On average, a FTA is somewhere between about .42 and ~.47 possessions, but the number of 1 and 1s, the number of 3 point play opportunites, and technical fouls can make this different for different teams.
It’s never the case that the different methods for estimating (and it’s always an estimation) possessions makes a bad defensive team look good, but it can have some effect on sorting teams so that by one method a team might be 4th, by another 6th, etc.
by jae on Jun 1, 2009 11:48 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
sigh. can’t believe i have to waste all this time just to show that orlando is a good defensive team. yes yes it was a different poster and you never said they weren’t.
okay… let’s try this again. i didn’t want to waste time looking for all the #‘s (and figured def eff would be sufficient, i didn’t realize you two would see it as something of a sophism) but here we go:
technically, Orlando is 6th in PPG allowed, 3rd in opponent’s FG% allowed, 2nd in opponent’s 3 pt % allowed and they are 2nd in defensive rebounding %.
so technically Orlando is a great defensive team, no? (rhetorical)
by the evil monkey on Jun 1, 2009 5:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
i don’t think anyone said they were a bad defensive team. the discussion was about your description of defensive efficiency.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
by cap'n hack on Jun 1, 2009 5:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Loved the article.........
kick me but I believe Wright and Marco should stay in our future long enough to see what they can do with health and playing time/they showed something this year……meanwhile yes we need the point guard/floor leader….too bad Ty Lawson and Flynn are undersized…they both have the strength/speed/passing/leadership quality/passing etc that we need…..wished I knew more than about Holiday (other than from the fanpost experts here) I dream of Rubio..he will be a superstar I believe…..bad feeling about Jennings/could be wrong but he will not last till 7th anyway………..and oh yes we need a Carlos Boozer/Blake Griffen in our near future……….still daydreaming…..
by Only In Fairfax on May 31, 2009 11:32 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
meh. all Denver’s season proved to me was how underrated Chauncey Billup’s is and how overrated AI is in reverse.
though even when Camby was traded, i argued that Denver’s demise (many ppl here said they wouldn’t make the playoffs) was overblown; and that as long as Nene was healthy they would be fine at the starting C spot… i mistakenly thought Steven Hunter would be an adequate back up (but they ended up getting that out of Birdman).
by the evil monkey on May 31, 2009 11:48 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
eh. all Denver’s season proved to me was how underrated Chauncey Billup’s is and how overrated AI is in reverse.
Meh, I half agree. But less than a decade ago A.I. was the little point guard who shot a pretty bad percentage from the floor but willed his team, that wouldn’t have been nearly as good without him, to success. Now its Billups. When A.I. was leading his team to the finals, Billups was still bouncing around the league and was dangerously close to being considered a bust. While the Denver turnaround is amazing I certainly don’t think Billups is underrated…I mean you couldn’t turn the TV on for the last month without hearing about him. As with most players, I think you can chalk the success, and the failures of both, up to their roles. Iverson has excelled when he can dominate the ball and has a great defensive team around him. Chauncey excels when defenses can’t key on him and he has plenty of options to get the ball to, but still has the green light to attack the basket at will. I haven’t watched nearly enough of Iverson lately to know if his career is done or if he was just an even worse fit in Detroit than he was in Denver, but I think we’re a little quick to forget just how good he really was. Billups is clearly the better player, but if you look at their careers, I’d say Billups is closer to overhyped and Iverson closer to underhyped right now.
Thing A
by sam23 on May 31, 2009 1:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
AI was underhyped this year because he just wasn’t playing up to his previous level. He was pretty average this year imo.
Warriors, Stupidest franchise in the league.
"It takes a special kind of anti-mojo for a team to miss the playoffs 14 out of 15 seasons. Like, say, the Warriors under Chris Cohan."
by kenntoe on May 31, 2009 2:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
maybe. it still seems most GSOMers underrate Billups when discussing that Detroit team. and credit AI for making the finals w/ a team that would have a tough time getting past this year’s Hawks team let alone the Celtics, Magic or Cavs.
i still say that 76ers team had no business being in the finals. the East was garbage in those days and the real finals were Lakers vs Spurs or Kings….. the conf finals was a 4-3 victory against the “say no to defense” crew of Sam Cassell, Ray Allen, Glenn Robinson, Tim Thomas. the other starter was Ervin Johnson. semifinals was a 4-3 victory over Vince Carter and the nobodies… looking at the age & stats of that team… how the hell did that roster get to the 2nd round?
and dikembe deserved more credit 14 pts 14 reb 3 blks per game & a TS% of 58% during the playoffs.
and i know Billups wasn’t great his 1st 4 years in the league….. but he was never on the verge of being out of the league. even his rookie season he averaged 11 pts 4 assists and 2.5 rebs. he struggled with injuries his 2nd & 3rd year but still put up similar #‘s in the 58 games he played those 2 years. his 1st yr in Minnesota was a recovery yr (still decent #’s) and by his 2nd year there he had emerged.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/b/billuch01.html
by the evil monkey on May 31, 2009 2:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Was the East any better when Billups and Detroit were dominating it? I don’t think so. D-Wade, an old Shaq and……….. not much else took them to 7 games. Sure Deke played a huge role for the Sixers, but A.I. was a bigger part of those Sixer teams than Chauncey was for those Pison teams. And saying that 76er team would struggle to get by this year’s Atlanta team is just the kind of lack of respect for just how good A.I. (and Mutombo) were. Yea they probably wouldn’t beat this Orlando team or LeBron’s Cavs, but a KG-less Celtics or the Hawks? Seriously? I don’t think it would be all that close.
I also didn’t say Billups was on the verge of being out of the league. Kwame Brown is well beyond being on the verge of being declared a bust. He’s not close to being out of the league.
Thing A
by sam23 on May 31, 2009 3:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
well that season when Detroit won it all, the Pacers were also legit. there were 2 legit NBA championship teams in the East that year… there were 0 the year AI & company went.
plus that small note of the Pistons actually winning the championship via sweep vs being slaughtered after beating a rusty Lakers team in game 1.
imo, the NBA & the eastern conference specifically is twice as talented nowadays than it was at the turn of the century. expansion and early entry had diluted the talent pool which wasn’t filled until the influx quality International players and the maturation of High School players. and adding Lebron, Dwight, Bosh, KG among others doesn’t hurt. i mean Kidd, RJ (replace RJ w/ Keith Van Horn in year 1) & K-Mart Eastern 2x conf champs?
I also didn’t say Billups was on the verge of being out of the league. Kwame Brown is well beyond being on the verge of being declared a bust. He’s not close to being out of the league.
doh. read your post wrong sorry (read “bouncing around the league” wrong).
by the evil monkey on May 31, 2009 3:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
A.I. also didn’t have anywhere near the talent around him that Chauncey did. Its difficult to compare them and both will likely deservingly end up as hall of famers. I’m just saying that its not as thought nobody is giving Billups any credit nowadays, and it sure seems popular to hate on Iverson. Like I said, Billups was obviously the better player this season, and maybe Iverson is washed up…..I really don’t know. But I think its totally unfair to say that Iverson is overrated while Billups is underrated unless the only measure you’re using is jersey sales compared to effectiveness this season.
Thing A
by sam23 on May 31, 2009 4:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
i’m basing it off the relative idea that AI is thought of as a superstar & Billups isn’t.
by the evil monkey on May 31, 2009 6:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
most media, players, GMs & fans do using the points scored evaluation that many favor when evaluating players. it’s kind of why AI makes a little over 20 mill & CB makes a little over 10. unfortunately, just how it is.
by the evil monkey on May 31, 2009 7:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I definitely wouldn’t say “most”
Thing A
by sam23 on May 31, 2009 10:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Isn't this + good on ball defence what you want in a point guard?
“Chauncey excels when defenses can’t key on him and he has plenty of options to get the ball to, but still has the green light to attack the basket at will”
To me a point guard appropriately distributes the ball to scorers- hot scorers, players with mismatches etc, but will take advantage if they have an open lane/shot and not “force” scoring… this is exactly why teams do better with good “true” pointguards- the right people score at the right time. Few teams have Lebron or Kobe to just dominate the ball/game without a good point guard distributor.
by Warrior fan since 1985 on May 31, 2009 7:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
How is Chauncey Billups underrated?
He is a good veteran point guard. That being said, if you took AI and Chauncey and put them both on terrible teams, AI would make a bigger impact. Iverson’s game is so polarizing that it is hard to just throw him on a team and tell him to go do his thing, while Billups has proven to be able to blend in with a talented veteran group and take them to the next level.
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on May 31, 2009 2:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
your response is why i say he’s underrated.
by the evil monkey on May 31, 2009 2:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
and your response is why we say A.I. is underrated.
Thing A
by sam23 on May 31, 2009 3:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
well i think AI in his day was a good offensive player – i just don’t think he was ever the franchise player or top 10 player that fans & analysts make him out to be.
i also don’t think Nash was a top 5 player those years he was winning MVPs….. at some point you guys have to account for defense.
by the evil monkey on May 31, 2009 3:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
wow, A.I. wasn’t a top 10 player? Go back and watch some of the 2001 playoffs. I’m not gonna argue with you about Nash, but keep in mind that MVP doesn’t go to the “best” player. Do you think Billusp is/was a top 10 player? Who is he better than (name at least 7): LeBron, Kobe, Howard, Wade, Paul, Carmelo, Dirk, Yao, KG, Pierce, Duncan, Amare, Bosh, Durant, Deron Williams, Amare.
Thing A
by sam23 on May 31, 2009 4:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
i don’t dispute the MVPs Nash got. just that he wasn’t a top 5 player.
outside of some youtube highlights, how can i go back and watch some of the 2001 playoffs? this statement is meaningless. i can say go look at DBerri’s Win Score, AI contributed to a whopping 5.2 wins that season. at least that’s something you can actually do.
i never said Chauncey was a top 10 player. i merely said those that said AI was one don’t value defense at all. even on the Sixers, AI was a negative defender who goes for steals instead of playing proper position defense (which is fine if you have an elite big guy behind you anchoring your defense, but still i wouldn’t consider it to be fundamentally sound… ).
btw, a lot of those guys you namedweren’t in the league in 03-04 or were rookies then. here’s the all-star game list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_NBA_All-Star_Game
there aren’t 2 guys named Amare… the 1 guy named Amare on the Suns is pretty overhyped as well. nice offensive player, but not much of a defensive player. Al Jefferson would be helping his team win a lot more games if he actually expended any energy on defense outside of the occasional reach in (or up for a block).
and again, my point is if you’re not accounting for a player being a turrrrrible defensive player, you’re not accounting for 1/2 the game.
by the evil monkey on May 31, 2009 6:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
where did you get that data?
Basketball-reference.com has Iverson’s win shares (not the same thing, I guess) for the 2000-01 season at 11.7.
by markdash on Jun 1, 2009 11:30 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
straight from the site for Win Score
by the evil monkey on Jun 1, 2009 5:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
what the hell
George Lynch, 10 wins? The guy averaged 8.4 points and 7.2 rebounds per game on 44.5% from the floor and 71.9% from the line.
Basketball reference has him at 6.5 win shares, which seems reasonable.
But hey, go ahead and enlighten me as to how George Lynch was the best player on the 2000-01 76ers.
by markdash on Jun 1, 2009 8:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hooray for outliers!!!
I’m sure you could go look on Basketball reference and find some outliers there. In fact, I’m so sure that I’m not even going to bother. Every metric tracks things differently and every metric is imperfect.
So, don’t find one outlier and try to write off EM’s metric just because it was NIH, according to you.
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
R Dizzle = Wannabe AB1
by Dubs fan in Boston on Jun 2, 2009 7:49 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
well if the same metric e.m. used to disprove Iverson’s value to the 01 Sixers shows George Lynch to be that team’s best player its not as though he went digging for an outlier……thats pretty relevant.
Thing A
by sam23 on Jun 2, 2009 9:34 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
+1
Exactly. I went right to the team under discussion (2000-01 76ers) and was surprised (to say the least) that apparently their best player was George Lynch.
I’m always open to new metrics; I’m hardly a luddite in that respect. However, I have no idea how George Lynch could rate as the best player on that team, statistically or otherwise.
by markdash on Jun 2, 2009 9:41 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
When criticizing a metric, it’s very, very important to understand what the metric actually addresses. It is not a measure of “best” in the sense that most people tend to think of best like an “MVP” award. It is a measure of individual contribution to a team statistical total.
The wins produced metric doesn’t say that Lynch was the ‘best’ player. It says that his statistical output correlated more with winning basketball in that season than with anyone else on the team, weighted for playing time. If you erased his statistics from the team’s totals without replacing them with anyone else’s, it would have been the most detrimental to the team. This is true (though of course they would have had something from even a marginal player put in in his stead). If you interpret that as ‘best’ (some do, some don’t) then he was the best. If you think that his statistical contribution would have been easier to replace than that, then he was not “the best”.
I find the very interesting thing about that 6ers team that there wasn’t any particular player or couple of players who stood out as much more productive than the other. I’d worry more if the metric said that Lynch was responsible for approx half of the team’s wins (something that happens fairly regularly with superstars and wins produced), I’d question it more. But it doesn’t. It says that he was tops in a fairly well distributed lot, and I suspect that with a reasonable standard error, that there were a few guys perhaps more valuable, but Lynch accounting for 10 wins isn’t at all unreasonable. For the guy who got the second most minutes on the team to be responsible for just a shade under 1/5th of the team’s wins? Not at all unusual. Since there are 5 guys on the court at a time, figuring one of the regular starters would be responsible for about a 5th isn’t at all peculiar.
The real unusual thing is that there wasn’t really any one guy who got the bulk of the “wins”, as is usually the case on most teams. They had a collection of guys contributing at an above average for their position rate that they rotated in. That the top ‘wins produced’ didn’t go to the big time scorer is what puts people off. It was a team effort, even if the popular opinion was that it was all Iverson. It wasn’t. It was a team that did it mostly with defense. (Berri’s metric tends to be less precise about who gets credit for defense, but Lynch was a very good defender, able to cover guys both bigger and smaller than him, who closed quickly on the double team and was rarely burned on a switch. But if you notice per minute played, they had a whole bunch of guys that weren’t terribly far apart in their per minute contribution.)
The history of the 6ers in subsequent years when they replaced the above (for their position) rebounders and defenders with lesser defenders shows that they didn’t do as well without them. The metric fairly reliably indicated that this would happen, and it did happen. If Iverson was really responsible for the bulk of the wins, this should not have been the case, nor should it have been the case that when he was finally traded that there was not a decline (but in fact, some improvement) in the team’s fortunes.
by jae on Jun 2, 2009 12:06 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I understand all these things. I was using the word “best” as shorthand for “most productive” or “statistically best”, or, as you put it, “has the highest correlation with winning.”
Even looking at the numbers, I’m having a hard time figuring out how Lynch rates the best of the bunch. His TS% was one of the worst on the team, and his rebound rates aren’t awesome either. Why does he rate more highly than Aaron McKie, who had a much higher TS%? Is it simply because he played in all 82 games that year?
I guess the big question, one which is probably worthy of its own thread, is how much credence you give these “black box” statistics. It’s easy to point at Win Shares or wins produced and treat them like they are gospel. But AFAIK the methods for calculating these are not publicly available. How much stock can you put in a statistic that you cannot verify? This isn’t to say that I think Dave Berri or anyone else has an alterior motive or is being intentionally shifty with the numbers, but that there may be some flaw in their methodology that we should account for.
by markdash on Jun 2, 2009 12:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
His TS% was low, but he didn’t shoot much, so he didn’t incur much penalty for this. He just didn’t get much benefit from scoring.
The reason he rates so high (which, for what it’s worth, isn’t really amazingly high by the standard of the metric) is that he rebounded very well at a SF position, well above the position average. He also didn’t turn the ball over much, which helps. In short, he was a big positive on the “possessions” count, wasting very few and securing more than the average SF would. That he’s the highest in terms of total wins is largely because he played many minutes. Per minute, Mutombo was far more valuable.
Wins Produced is far from a black box. None of it is a secret and the formulas, along with a step by step example of how to use them, are available on line. You can see exactly how it’s calculated and read exactly the process that went into creating the formula.
(A big difference between PER and Wins Produced is that the logic behind weighting things in WP is explicit and because of the observed correlation. Hollinger does not indicate why he came up with the formula he did, and supports it after the fact by the observation that it correlates well with popular opinion of player quality. That last fact is meaningless, as it just says that he can put a number on what people instinctively already believe, regardless of whether on not there’s good basis for the belief in terms of actual player utility. I do not know what the logic behind Win Share is enough to comment on it.)
The process involves seeing how the individual statistical categories correlate with win probability and sums this for individual players. You can then test how reliable it is in terms of player movement between teams and the subsequent changes in team records based on the moves. It performs rather well in such cases.
I acknowledge some issues with wins produced. It gets some things just plain wrong, but they are few and far between and seem to relate to 3 particular areas. They are rare enough that you’ll make money if you use it as your decision making tool much more often than not. And with a bit of looking at the outliers with another method (like plus/minus, seeing the rare cases with big disagreement) it’s possible to identify these cases most of the time. I don’t think any other method does as good a job of identifying a player’s true value to a team and gets beyond the knee jerk evaluations than really do cloud the vast majority of fans’ opinions.
by jae on Jun 2, 2009 1:09 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
Correct me if I am wrong, but all “wins” statistics work such that all the team’s wins produced, when added together, equal that team’s win total, correct?
If so, couldn’t there be issues with teams that overachieve (i.e. teams that outperform their pythagorean)?
by markdash on Jun 2, 2009 1:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wins Produced estimates wins. It does not have to add up to actual wins. Teams can over- or under- produce their wins produced totals, just like the pythagorean estimates. Teams that are lucky or unlucky in close games can be off a few wins in either case. The estimates are seldom very far off however, usually within 2 or 3 wins of the actual totals.
I do not know if “win share” operates as an estimate or a division of the actual wins.
by jae on Jun 2, 2009 2:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Great stuff JAE
I was worried you might invoke the “Tar Heel Exception” and stay out of the Lynch discussion; thanks for stepping in and enlightening us.
Thing 1
by Sleepy Freud on Jun 2, 2009 3:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
i’d put morrow down for that jr smith role well before crawford. he’s the better offensive player, rebounds fairly well, and doesn’t murder the team with crappy defense. i’d love to see him get a shot to step in and provide that firepower you mentioned.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
by cap'n hack on May 31, 2009 12:42 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
you make a good case
- but we’re stuck with Crawford and need to find some role to maximize his potential contribution …
by hardcore on May 31, 2009 1:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
i think his role could be maximized pretty well by being an expiring contract in 2011. he really doesn’t have much value beyond that. at least not on this team. he’s a subpar bench guard on a team full of decent to fairly good guards. there really isn’t much of a place for him on the team that doesn’t hurt us. it’d be different if we were really thin at the guard spots.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
by cap'n hack on May 31, 2009 2:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
silver lining of Crawford’s expiring in 2011: we aren’t likely to be players in 2010 anyway while all the teams with cap room then will have max’d out by 2011 . So, we might have a strong young core and be able to cherry pick a good player to fit … that just seems like a pipe dream even as I type – long time away and we’d’ve to have a FO who could pull that off …
by hardcore on Jun 1, 2009 9:23 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I share your optimism
to me our lineup is legit. If we can have the majority of our key players (Jack, Maggs, Monta, AB) play 60+ games each we’ll win 40+ games and be contenders for the playoffs. This should be the lineup we go with
Monta/Jamal/Beli
Jack/Morrow/Beli
Buike/Maggs/AR/Morrow
Wright or AR/the other/Maggs
Biens/Ronny
Obviously the forward postitions need to be sorted, Maggette could start but I think Nellie wants him to continue coming off the bench. AR could start or Buike at the 3, I’d prefer Buike that way either BWright or AR start and we would still have height on the bench. We’re pretty deep in legit talent at least offensively. Defensively, our biggest problem was on the perimeter, but starting Jack and Buike greatly improves that. Monta is better than Cj or Jamal on D, he is also the youngest and learns quick, we just need to emphasize D.
That’s why I dont care too much about this draft, whoever we draft is not going to play, so no the draft is not the answer to our “problems” health is. I’m indifferent to Jamal opting out. If he goes Beli and A-Mo play significant minutes. Remember the Boston game! If he stays, we suddenly have two 20 pt scorers on the bench, and because they’re vets, they give Nellie the comfort to rest Jack and Monta more.
by myk on May 31, 2009 12:51 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
agreed
KAz starting makes a lot of sense to me – better defense, and hopefully better ball movement. Both def & sharing the ball could be problematic with a 1-2-3 of Monta, Jax, and Maggs. The only place we differ is putting Marco at PG – I just think he’s more dynamic coming from the wing – penetrate & kick out, but to who? play he and morrow together? like you said, probably only if Crawford opts out (unlikely). Bottom line with Marco is that I don’t think he can bring it up and initiate the offense against NBA defenders. He’d probably be much better in a system where teams actually run a play with a screen …
by hardcore on Jun 1, 2009 9:30 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I prefer Morrow over Kaz.
Dudes a mini-Maggette.
Warriors, Stupidest franchise in the league.
"It takes a special kind of anti-mojo for a team to miss the playoffs 14 out of 15 seasons. Like, say, the Warriors under Chris Cohan."
by kenntoe on Jun 1, 2009 11:58 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not sure about the starting lineup though
if Marco or A-Mo come into camp playing well, really well, I could see one of them as the SG, with Jack at the 3. I think a Marco/Monta backcourt is the future and it also has the potential to be very good. Remember Marco vs Boston, CJ was technically the PG but lets not kid ourselves, he’s a very, very small SG. Marco has better handles, better vision, and is a better passer than Monta, at least right now. I think that he or Jack are the best compliments to Monta, due to their size, different abilites on O, and D. Is Marco our closest thing to a “true pg”? Does Nellie ball really need that sort of PG? I’m not sure…
by myk on Jun 1, 2009 8:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
i see our team being very similar to denver pre-billups. i think if we somehow found a “control” player for our team to regulate all of the raw talent on the floor, we could have something good. its just a matter of finding that certain player. right now our team is just loaded with so much talent, everyone is just playing for themselves. we need to move the ball more and make that extra pass..oh and PLAY DEFENSE.
Gerald Madkins
by gorillas on May 31, 2009 1:43 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Control Player
Great point. The Dubs are in need of a facilitator and leader in the worst way. We have a stockpile of dangerous scorers. However, we need a player whose priority is to get them the ball in the most effective manner possible. Is Jennings that guy? I don’t think so. Is Holliday, I’m not sure. While #7 may be a bit high, our best bet for a facilitating point guard is either Ty Lawson or Flynn. Yes, it makes us undersized, but worse things could happen. Like starting CJ Watson for a considerable portion of the season.
by Dubologist on May 31, 2009 3:52 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
defensive attitude and a billups type leader
the team has to start playing defense to succeed. where’s the defensvie stopper? if it’s going to be SJAx then somebody else has to shoulder being the top scorer. which player is holding his teammates accountable? the ultimate goal is to win a championship and that in turn means playing good defense. the Dubs cannot settle for outscoring teams in the regular season…only to lose annually in the playoffs when defensive intensity increases. FIRST change the defensive mentality on this poor defensive team.
billups raised denver to a new level by leadership. i read an article billups kept josh smith from going to the clubs and partying, and instead working at his game. he holds teammates accountable on and off the court…exactly the type of thing gsw needs. roles would be better defined, potential could be better reached. SECOND, find a billups type leader.
two things that could go a long way for this talented team.
by Brickowski BOOM on Jun 4, 2009 5:25 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I don't know why Billups would keep Josh Smith from going to clubs. Does he have some special desire to help out the Hawks?
Atma and others have done a pretty good job of debunking the “Billups raised Denver to a new level” line. They won a few more games, but their efficiency differential wasn’t any better. Their offensive and defensive outputs were almost identical. The extra wins (all 4 of them) can just as easily be explained by luck, and they exited the season in the same fashion: losing to the eventual Western Conference Champ.
by jae on Jun 4, 2009 6:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
in fairness to the “billups helped the defense” line. they did lose marcus camby last summer. getting nene back probably offsets that by a fair amount, but to say that billups coming didn’t help the team is a bit shaky.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
by cap'n hack on Jun 4, 2009 6:25 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I don’t doubt that Billups provided good defense, and it probably did help make up for some of what they lost in Camby.
They also had the Birdman this year, who provided strange, but ridiculously effective defense.
I just think it’s important to note that the team didn’t really transform. From how people are writing about them, you’d think that they went from a horrible defensive team to an elite squad, when in fact, there was almost no difference at all. If Denver was better (and that’s an “if”, as by efficiency differentials, they were actually a tiny, tiny bit worse overall), it wasn’t much better. Giving Billups credit for transforming a team that wasn’t really transformed seems a bit wrong.
by jae on Jun 4, 2009 6:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
that’s true and i did forget about birdman, who was one of the more entertaining players in this post-season exactly because of that “strange, but ridiculously effective defense” and general high energy wackiness that he provided. good to see he got his life back on track.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
by cap'n hack on Jun 4, 2009 6:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Haha
They also had the Birdman this year, who provided strange, but ridiculously effective defense.
Something tells me that the Birdman would appreciate that line if he read it.
Thing 2
by olympicmike on Jun 5, 2009 11:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Golden State Of Mind
Related FanShots on Golden State Of Mind
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
