The Amare Trade and EWA
by FLAxwless on Jun 27, 2009 5:19 PM PDT
55 comments
The Amare Trade and EWA
You can't say that Larry Riley isn't trying to improve the team given the trade talks that had emerged at the draft. Trading for Amare is a bold move considering the superstar talent Amare possesses, but as we know teams don't trade superstar talent away just because they are unhappy. So what will Amare do for the Warriors? How does the rumored trade affect the Warriors on the basketball court? Is it worth it? In this post we'll look at the impact of the trade on the team's EWA and try to determine if it's worth it. **Jae just beat me by a day in getting this out (a great post by the way) but another viewpoint doesn't hurt**
Refresher on EWA
In case you missed it here is the link my initial post regarding EWA and applying to the Warriors. If you haven't read it before than take the time to do so now, in order to help gain a better understanding of this post.
A quick refresher on the findings of the report that is pertinent to discussing the trade.
1) Rule of 45/8 - Most playoff teams had total of 45 EWA and Top 5 Avg of 8 EWA/player
2) With the Warriors lineup as is they are projected to break the 45/8 barrier meaning they would be in the playoff chase.
Finding #2 is why this trade proposal causes great discomfort amongst Warrior fans. With all the injuries last year we haven't seen what this young team is capable of doing. As Dub fans we have learned to live and actually come to love the concept of potential and a better future although we have seen that could take a decade to realize.
The Chart of Information
Most of the info I will be referring to is on this chart. So open the link and keep it handy.
Biedrins vs Amare
I love Biedrins as a player but anyway you look at it there should be no question WHEN healthy and in a run and gun system just who is a better player.
Looking at their estimated EWAs as centers (Amare's 08-09 EWA is higher than what is listed on ESPN because it is calculated as a PF) we see the huge disparity in EWA over the past 3 years since Amare has returned from microfracture surgery averaging 16.21 EWA as a center compared to Biedrins who has averaged 7.76 EWA. That's more than double the value that Andris brings to a team. If you want to look at PER ratings, Amare's worst season since returning from injury (last year) is still better than Andris' best season in his 5 year career (last year).
People like to make a big deal about the loss in rebounding and shot blocking but Amare averages 9 rebounds and 1.5 blks for his career (high 2.1/ blks and 9.6 rebounds) compared to Andris who averaged 8.2 rebounds and 1.2 blks (high 1.7/blks and 11.2 rebounds). Andris averages are weighted down by his early career numbers and I'll concede Andris is a better defender than Amare but the difference in defense is smaller than the wide gap on the offensive end. Amare scores more points, has a great FT% for a big man, and has the ability to score away from the key.
Some may look at the 08-09 numbers and point to it as evidence that Amare is slipping as their EWAs and PER were so close, but what it shows to me is that Amare's floor is Biedrins ceiling. At this point in their careers I don't think either man will improve significantly. Pretty much what we see now is what we'll get: Amare can be a Top 5 player in the NBA while Biedrins can be a Top 5 center. Which one would you rather have?
The Trade and Warrior's EWA
I don't think anyone would turn down an Amare for Biedrins deal straight up, but the reality is that in order to acquire a talent like Amare we have to give up talent. From the various media reports we know the working parts of the deal is Amare for Biedrins, Belinelli, Wright, and Bukie, Curry, or both.
The Upper Left box shows the Warriors projected EWA. I took out Watson's numbers and plugged in Curry/Law using Law's dreadful 10.68 PER from last year. The numbers used to project Amare's EWA are realistic and attainable, IMO. I used 33 mpg (career 34 mpg) which totals just above 2700 (he hasn't played more than 2700 since he returned for surgery) and used his average PER from the past 3 season. Without Amare the Dubs would still be a 45/8 team, but any trade acquiring Amare would increase the Warriors' Top 5 average to around 10 EWA per Top 5 player which would put the Warriors behind only the Lakers and Cavaliers. If you read the last post the Warriors weakness shown by EWA was not overall team talent but the lack of a superstar player/talent in the starting 5. Adding Amare even if it involved Biedrins, Belinelli, Wright, Bukie, AND Curry would result in a fearsome starting 5 that is a lock for playoffs and IMO a legitimate threat to the Western Conference Finals, but will our bench be good enough?
Most NBA coaches prefer an 8 man rotation and of all those possible combinations my ideal trade for Amare would be what ESPN reported. Amare for Biedrins, Belinelli, and Wright would leave a bench of Maggette, Morrow, Turiaf, and Curry. That is a solid bench rotation that gives you a little bit of everything: instant offense, a sharpshooter, a solid big, and a young combo guard.
My second option and take it or leave it trade would be Biedrins, Belinelli, Wright, and Bukie for Amare. This would weaken the bench as either Morrow or Maggette would be forced into the starting 5, but it would still be decent with Morrow/Maggette to back up the 2/3, Turiaf to back up the PF/C, and Curry/Law to take time at the 1 and 2 spots. Given how high Nelson is on Curry this would still produce a legitimate 8 man NBA rotation. Bukie is a solid NBA player but we have someone similar (albeit more expensive) in Maggette.
If we added to the trade Curry but left out Bukie we'd have decent depth as a team but you'd rely on Law/Watson as your primary back ups at PG and miss out on the closest thing to Steve Nash as Nelson says. Adding Bukie and Curry is just asking for trouble as we'd have to rely on Law and camp fodder to fill that 8th spot in the rotation after Morrow/Maggs and Turiaf.
So should we do the trade?
If it costs nothing more than Biedrins, Bukie, Wright, and Belinelli I would do trade for Amare if we can reach a long term agreement. Aside from the long term agreement and parting possibly with Curry (not gonna happen) every other complaint about the Amare trade does not overshadow his major positive - a legitimate Top 5 NBA player.
1) That's too many players to trade for one guy - If basketball were 10 vs 10 then you guys may have a valid complaint but only 5 people can play at a time. Also most NBA coaches and players prefer the stability afforded by an 8 man NBA rotation. The Warriors have a squad full of NBA rotation players (only team with + EWA for every player) but even adding Bukie we are only losing 1 projected rotation player (Bukie) as Amare and Andris cancel and Belinelli and Wright are not Nelson favorites.
2) Wright, Belinelli, Bukie, and Biedrins have potential - The dreaded word of potential. These guys do have potential but in my estimation none have the Top 5 player in the NBA potential that Amare possesses and has already proven he can be. Second, you can only realize your potential with game time and Wright and Belinelli would have gotten none barring injuries. Morrow and Randolph have overtaken both in the rotation and the plans of the franchise and justifiably so.
3) 2008-09 shows Amare is declining - I don't think that true at all. I think the biggest reason was the dysfunction in Phoenix. Once D'Antoni was fired the Suns lost their identity and tried to become a defensive team and work in some half court offense to cater to Shaq. What's funny is that the Suns two best players, Nash and Amare, are adverse to defense and the half court. Put Amare in a run and gun offense and you'll see the return of a beast.
4) He is a superstar entering his prime but he is injury prone and has a bad attitude - Does this sound familiar? It's so similar it's scary. Last time we traded for a young superstar that was injury prone and had a bad attitude it worked out quite well with BD. Amare flourished under D'Antoni and he should do the same under Nellie who coaches the style that suits Amare the best and is able to manage and connect to strong personalities like BD and Jackson.
Conclusion
The rumored trade for Amare is one about quality over quantity. Yes, we are giving up a lot of players but as long as we don't give up Curry and can reach a long term agreement, its well worth it IMO.
Biedrins is a very good center but does not have the potential of Amare, Belinelli and Wright are expendable as non-rotation players (you can argue withe Nelson if you want), and Bukie is undrafted FA who turned into a solid NBA player. You don't pass up a Top 5 NBA player who would single-handedly address ours issue regarding a post presence and superstar player because of Wright, Belinelii, and Bukie.
Yes there are risks, like is he Kenyon Martin 2.0 (becomes a role player once they don't have a playmaking PG), but considering the pieces we are giving up and what would be left on the team it's worth it for a chance at a dominating big who was born to play in Nellie's system. The last time we had such a player we traded him for potential - Tom Gugliotta and three 1st rounders. Hmmm.... so similar to the proposed Biedrins, Wright (1st rounder), Belinelli (1st rounder), and Bukie trade that some are against. I guess some Warrior Fans never learn, hopefully Nelson has.
To put it simply Amare is the difference between fighting for the 7th or 8th seed or fighting for home court advantage in the 1st round. Considering the asking price for Bosh is Biedrins/Ellis + Randolph, I'd take Biedrins + scrubs for Amare in a heart beat.
Luckily for us, Riley and Nelson are in the driver's seat in trading with Phoenix. We can play hardball knowing that other teams have to match our offer (unlikely) and that we don't need Amare as much as Kerr wants to get rid of him. The longer this drags the cheaper Amare's price will become and we'll see exactly whether the Suns think they can do better with 16 million in cap space when Amare opts out compared to Biedrins, Wright, Belinelli, and Bukie.
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!
4 recs |
55 comments
Email
Print
Comments
as long as we don’t give up Curry and can reach a long term agreement, its well worth it IMO.
Solid post FLAxwless, but you do realize that the bolded part of your conclusion undermines everything else you’ve written?
Thing 1
by Sleepy Freud on Jun 27, 2009 5:28 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
How so?
Quantity for quality?
Curry falls into the quality part of the argument. With Nelson’s latest comments of Curry being a possible Nash-like player he’s on a different level than Wright, Marco, and Bukie.
Check out Goallineblitz - Free Football MMORPG
Build players, Build teams, watch games...
http://goallineblitz.com/game/signup.pl?ref=4892220
by FLAxwless on Jun 27, 2009 5:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The idea that Curry is on a higher level than Wright is, um, highly debatable. Is he also on a higher level than Biedrins?
Thing 1
by Sleepy Freud on Jun 27, 2009 5:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Draft day delusions...
I think this is just another case of the old “the most valuable player on a lotto team is usually the last guy they drafted” way of thinking. It’s so easy to get overly excited about these guys until we see them play. A little ways into the season most fans will slowly come out of it and see the players flaws.
Thing 2
by olympicmike on Jun 27, 2009 8:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Regarding Curry...
Is Curry on a higher level than Wright and Belinelli?
- Yes. To fans this maybe debatable, but to Don Nelson it’s pretty cut and dry that Curry is more valuable whether you agree with his assessment of Curry or not. Wright and Belinelli were Mullin picks and Nelson never liked them. The fact that they are included in the trade should make it clear where they stand. The praise Nelson has heaped upon Curry and the fact that they had him rated #2 behind Griffin makes it pretty clear that Curry is of high value to Nelson.
Nelson has no need to build up Curry to increase his trade value, because the Suns love him already. So the praise that Nelson is giving the young guy is genuine.
Is Curry on a higher level than Biedrins?
- No, he’s not. Biedrins is a proven player but to get someone like Amare you have to give up someone good. Sadly, Biedrins has to be the one to go.
So when thinking about a deal from the Warriors perspective is Amare for Biedrins, Bukie, and 2 expendable parts. That is more than enough for Amare when other superstars get traded for expiring deals. Adding Curry is unnecessary as the Warriors hold the leverage in the negotiations and add to the fact that Nelson speaks highly of the rookie is something to consider.
Check out Goallineblitz - Free Football MMORPG
Build players, Build teams, watch games...
http://goallineblitz.com/game/signup.pl?ref=4892220
by FLAxwless on Jun 28, 2009 12:19 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Is Curry on a higher level than Wright and Belinelli?
The praise Nelson has heaped upon Curry and the fact that they had him rated #2 behind Griffin makes it pretty clear that Curry is of high value to Nelson… Nelson has no need to build up Curry to increase his trade value, because the Suns love him already. So the praise that Nelson is giving the young guy is genuine.
Level and value is two different things.
by lightz0ut on Jun 28, 2009 2:02 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What's your definition of level and value?
I don’t understand how you’re using the term “level”?
Check out Goallineblitz - Free Football MMORPG
Build players, Build teams, watch games...
http://goallineblitz.com/game/signup.pl?ref=4892220
by FLAxwless on Jun 28, 2009 10:18 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
level and value
Level:
Nelson’s latest comments of Curry being a possible Nash-like player he’s on a different level than Wright, Marco, and Bukie.
I think the context you use it refers to his basketball skills. Assuming he is indeed comparable to Nash in terms of skill, who is both an all-star and MVP, then his basketball level is higher than Wright, Marco, and Bukie who all figure to be solid starters at best.
Value:
Nelson has no need to build up Curry to increase his trade value, because the Suns love him already. So the praise that Nelson is giving the young guy is genuine.
You’re using value to refer to his trade value. Trade value is usually tied with basketball skills but not necessarily. Case in point, Crawford is no doubt on a higher level than a guy like Speedy Claxton and/or Acie Law. But because Claxton/Law are on their expiring deals, their trade value skyrocket that trading Crawford for them is actually a good trade for us.
by lightz0ut on Jun 28, 2009 1:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
FLAxwless, my friend
I’m afraid you may have lost track of what your argument is.
If your argument is that you should always make any trade in which you get the best player (as seems to be the case for most of the length of your well-argued diary), then your bizarre “Curry clause” completely invalidates it.
If your argument is that our hypothetical trade package should hurt us less (which it doesn’t appear to be, but just for the sake of argument): why wouldn’t you try to hold Biedrins out of the deal? Biedrins’ trade value lies almost completely in the on-floor production he brings to a team, whereas Curry’s trade value is heavily bound up in hype and speculation. (As an aside, I find it rather curious that you seem to preclude the very strong possibility that Nellie’s comments about Curry are either Basic Trade Posturing 101 or just Nellie Being Nellie.)
“But but we can’t do the deal without giving up Biedrins,” you will say. Probably true. And from most of the rumors I’ve read, the same seems to apply to Curry. The guy who, by all accounts doesn’t appear to be an integral part of the deal is Brandan Wright. Given that his trade value is depressed rather than inflated, that he can replace some of the Biedrins’ on-court skills, that he’s the same age as Curry, and that, unlike Curry, he has proven he can be a productive player at the NBA level, why would you want to ship him rather than Curry?
Now, if your argument is neither of the above but simply “KEEP STEPHEN CURRY!!!!” then maybe you should have made that the title of your diary (even it would have been the 14th GSoM diary to that effect…)
Thing 1
by Sleepy Freud on Jun 28, 2009 7:15 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If your argument is that you should always make any trade in which you get the best player (as seems to be the case for most of the length of your well-argued diary), then your bizarre "Curry clause" completely invalidates it.
Can’t say “always” as there are a other factors then simply making every deal to get the best player when it involves multiple players. I thought I mentioned the basketball reasons to keep Curry:
1) If you trade Curry and Bukie you weaken our bench.
2) Why not Curry instead of Bukie? We have better 2-3s than 1-2s. Ellis, Jackson, Morrow, Maggette to man the 2-3 is stronger than Ellis, Curry, Law, Speedy, Watson. Going into the draft people said our weakness were PG and PF/C. So trading away Curry is trading from an are of weakness rather then strength. PF/C is one of those weakness so why Wright? Wright gets traded simply b/c Nelson has deemed him expendable and in reality Nellieball only utilizes a 3 man rotation at PF/C – BIedrins/Amare, Turiaf, Randolph.
3) Why not Curry instead of Wright/Belinelli? – The fact that Wright and Belinelli will be non-rotation players and Curry as stated by Nelson figures to be rotation player at some point in the season. Also when you look at our roster Randolph and Morrow have over taken Wright/Belinelli. Again, the argument is not whether or not Wright or Belinelli can become productive players (I believe they can) but rather they are expendable because they are not part of the rotation.
That’s just the basketball part of it, but the front office/trade part of it is that Curry is not a dealbreaker but the Suns posturing and trying to get a little extra. If you play fantasy football or basketball you know when you talk deals your always throw out the best case scenario then work your way down. Well right now the Suns tossed out their best case scenario and the Dubs (as they should be) are in the process of breaking them down.
As for the point of the article it is not simply to Keep Curry (I’d trade Curry for Rondo or other proven young PGs) but the point is that proposed deals on the table for Amare are well worth it because 1) Amare upgrades Biedrins and 2) the cost to upgrade is 2 non-rotation players and Bukie.
Check out Goallineblitz - Free Football MMORPG
Build players, Build teams, watch games...
http://goallineblitz.com/game/signup.pl?ref=4892220
by FLAxwless on Jun 28, 2009 10:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nellie says
Sure, he may be more credible to talk about basketball than anyone here but just because he said so means it will come true.
You can’t use Nellie’s comment as an argument of how good a player will be. In fact, using it to justify that Curry will indeed remain a Warriors would be sketchy at best.
by lightz0ut on Jun 27, 2009 6:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
we don't need Amare as much as Kerr wants to get rid of him
Indeed, this puts us in the driver seat as far as negotiations between the two teams go so if the Warriors are genuinely intent of keeping Curry, they have no reason to fold and include him in the deal UNLESS someone cuts in.
The Warriors can just hold the package up of Biedrins, Wright, Belinelli to the Suns and say here’s what on the table, tell me if you’re ready to deal.
Unless a team suddenly comes up with a better offer, the Warriors don’t need to do anything but wait for the Suns.
by lightz0ut on Jun 27, 2009 6:07 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Exactly, wait.
Wait until December/January, see what the team has, what Amar’e is like, then if we need to, pull off the trade.
by myk on Jun 27, 2009 6:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed.
I say we start with an offer of
Biedrins + Curry + Maggs + Belinelli
for
Stoudemire + Barbosa
And let them try to bargain us down from there. See exactly how hot they are for Curry.
Thing 1
by Sleepy Freud on Jun 27, 2009 6:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I highly doubt they would take both Andris’ and Mags’ long term contracts, especially when it seems like they’re dumping salary left and right.
by rjnarayen on Jun 28, 2009 12:55 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes.
Pretty much summed up everything on how i feel feel for the trade. Sure giving up Bukie is a lot but he was a D-League player, something that the Warriors are used. Every player they pick up from the D-League ends up turning into a nice find (Bukie, Marrow, Watson) so i say we could find another Bukie type player.
by Spee-D on Jun 27, 2009 8:09 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
It’s going to be very hard to find another Kelenna Azubuike.
Who else are the Warriors going to get whose name’s spelling will bedevil fans, forum posters, and internet personalities?
Thing C
by markdash on Jun 27, 2009 8:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
...
Kelena Azabukie
Steven Jackson
Andris Beidrins
Rony Turiaf
Corey Magette
Marco Bellinelli
Brandon Wright
Monte Ellis
Mikael Petrius
Matt Barens
Amare Stoudamire
….
Is there anyone whose name’s spelling wouldn’t bedevil forum posters? Maybe Joe Smith?
Thing 1
by Sleepy Freud on Jun 27, 2009 9:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh, come on, you totally reached on Barnes.
Cheater!
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on Jun 27, 2009 10:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Scout's honor!
There was a pretty regular GSoM poster who consistently spelled his name “Barens.” Gold star for anyone who can remember who it was…
Thing 1
by Sleepy Freud on Jun 28, 2009 12:39 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ding ding ding!
Wow, well done. I thought that’s who it was, but wasn’t 100% sure. Not sure what it says about us that we remember distinctive spelling mistakes made by GSoMers two years ago, but it can’t be good…
Thing 1
by Sleepy Freud on Jun 28, 2009 7:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
:)
to be honest -i used search option just to get your gold star
actually i pretty much use searching in GSoM -because you can find pretty valuable things when you look back or just to look at present situation from perspective
30 Y 197 cm 115 kg 0 IQ
by Lat We N Trash on Jun 28, 2009 8:43 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
From the past, don’t forget former player and exec VP Chris Mullins and Latrell Spreewell. Apparently, Max’s distant cousin Chris Weber also played for use for a while.
I think if we want to make the spelling safe for the majority, we’ll have to get Joe Smith back and add Chris Paul.
by jae on Jun 28, 2009 9:26 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
DON'T FORGET...
Nelly instead of Nellie! I was like…we’re talking about the coach, not the rapper!
Geeez Louf*ckingweeez!!!
by scottiepimppen on Jun 28, 2009 11:14 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good point.
I’m glad the Warriors drafted Steven Curry, that guy can really ball (just like his dad, Del Curry).
Thing C
by markdash on Jun 27, 2009 9:19 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I think you make a great point that Phoenix needs this trade more than the Dubs. The Suns aren’t contenders this coming year, so Kerr is in danger of losing Amare for nothing. Getting Curry put us in the drivers seat in the sense that we’d be ok if we stayed pat right now. Phoenix clearly would not. Consequently, I think we will eventually get Amare because in the end we’ll make the best offer, even one that doesn’t include Curry. A package of Bieds, Wright, Azubuike, and even a 1st in 2010 is more than enough.
by eastbayglory on Jun 27, 2009 10:46 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
of all the trade talk on this..
you guys here seem to have the real focus down. It’s in what we give and for how long we get (or want) Amare.
A very real point to be made is the development of anthony randolph. If he gets better as a result of being around a.s. that is a great bonus. He might eventually replace him in the lineup.
Don’t worry about getting a serviceable center with at least one good skill set. They are out there.
Having A.S. makes sense if we don’t give the farm for him (i.e. curry ) but maybe cash and pick will ease phoenix? Well see..somewhere on here, atl was said to offer j. smith..
by 11allstar on Jun 27, 2009 11:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nice Post
Boozer is free agent. Why don’t we just sign him for a few years? and a solid small forward like Odom or Turkoglu? Amare is awesome but too much talent will be given away for him. Let Ellis and Curry run the back court, Biedrins in the middle, Jax and Maggs as the forwards. Man I miss the good ol days of JRich, Barnes & Baron. I think Jax and Maggs would be much more happy than with all these rooks. Which is why they arent playing to their full potential. Would you?
by jayarp23 on Jun 28, 2009 12:25 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Boozer isn’t signing here “for a few years” for the MLE, which is what we can offer, nor is Odom or Turkoglu. And since we don’t have more than one MLE, we certainly can’t get more than one of them, even if we managed to drug one and have them delusionally sign a contract.
by jae on Jun 28, 2009 10:03 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You’re almost certainly correct in your interpretation of his wording (“just signing” a FA sounds like signing him to a contract outright, rather than sign-and-trade), but there’s always the possibility of a S&T for guys like that.
Thing C
by markdash on Jun 28, 2009 10:06 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
a legitimate top 5 player? are you just refering to bigs when you say that or are you including the whole league? because if it’s every position, either lebron james, dwayne wade, dwight howard, chris paul, or kobe bryant would like a word with you. i’d also say that brandon roy, tim duncan, kevin garnett, carmelo anthony and dirk nowitzki would have some legitimate complaints about that statement too.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
by cap'n hack on Jun 28, 2009 12:27 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
1) Rule of 45/8 – Most playoff teams had total of 45 EWA and Top 5 Avg of 8 EWA/player
A single year observation based on a measurement you have not evaluated over a number of seasons in not a rule. It’s really only slightly better than a hunch. I applaud efforts to try to take an objective look, but this still suffers from using a measure that has not been well tested, that suffers from a demonstrable error in the formula for applying the statistic to wins and relies on a “rule” contrived from a single observation where you were a little generous in explaining away outliers to begin with (the single oservation being single season to set the benchmarks for your “rule”).
If you want to look at PER ratings, Amare’s worst season since returning from injury (last year) is still better than Andris’ best season in his 5 year career (last year).
And PER corresponds how well with winning and losing? Why is it the correct measure to be using here?
People like to make a big deal about the loss in rebounding and shot blocking but Amare averages 9 rebounds and 1.5 blks for his career (high 2.1/ blks and 9.6 rebounds) compared to Andris who averaged 8.2 rebounds and 1.2 blks (high 1.7/blks and 11.2 rebounds). Andris averages are weighted down by his early career numbers and I’ll concede Andris is a better defender than Amare but the difference in defense is smaller than the wide gap on the offensive end.
Actually, Andris’s average is ‘weighted down’ by the disparity in mpg. Since Stoudemire has played more minutes, this comparison is bogus, unless you conclude that whomever else plays the difference in minutes gets no rebounds at all. And what makes you think that the comparison of career averages (especially ones without controlling for PT) are meaningful. Andris has trended up over the last 4 years. Amare has trended down over that same time. What suggests that these trends aren’t more important?
Some may look at the 08-09 numbers and point to it as evidence that Amare is slipping as their EWAs and PER were so close, but what it shows to me is that Amare’s floor is Biedrins ceiling.
Why do you conclude that the past indicates that Biedrins has reached his peak and Stoudemire cannot decline further? At what age do players tend to stop improving? Start declining?
At this point in their careers I don’t think either man will improve significantly. Pretty much what we see now is what we’ll get: Amare can be a Top 5 player in the NBA while Biedrins can be a Top 5 center.
What’s the justification for Andris having peaked? What’s the justification that Stoudemire won’t decline further?
Again, this is an interesting post, but the questions about why EWA is at all meaningful still remain. Moving numbers around that haven’t been shown to have substantial meaning, finding “ratios” and “rules” from single observation, erroneously comparing unequal rate observations and postulating floors and ceilings without establishing criteria for this isn’t really different from just using a gut reaction. It has pretty numbers to “justify” the conclusion, but the numbers themselves have not yet been shown to be up to the task of arriving at such conclusions.
by jae on Jun 28, 2009 10:00 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Damn my reply disappeared...
I had a longer reply but it accidentally got deleted. Here’s a cliff notes version. S
1) I get it… you hate EWA and PER. No need to bring it back up. We went over this discussion last time.
2) The reference to PER was used to show how much better Amare is compared to Biedrins. PER was used in lieu of EFF, Roland Rating, Win Shares, because it is easier to find past seasons PER. However, whatever system you use (objective and subjective) Amare >>> BIedrins.
3) Regarding the career numbers were used for their ease of reference and more relatable for most users than rebounding rates or rebounding %. I did look at those but felt career averages proved my point just as well…. Andris is a better rebounder and defender (factor everything you pointed out – trends, etc) compared to Amare but the gap between their defensive games does not account for the gap between what Amare brings on offense compared to Andris.
4) Ceilings/Floors – Yes, those are all my subjective analysis. I wish I had the resources to provide the historical/statistical data you desire. Andris has reached his ceiling as a Tyson Chandler-type of player. He’ll never become an offensive force b/c 1) he won’t be able to extend his range – look at the mechanics of his FT shot 2) he doesn’t have the dominating physical attributes to make up for his lack of offensive skill.
As for Amare I can’t say he isn’t declining for sure (and in time all players decline) but I would bet that it’s more likely Amare returns to dominance then he begins a decline as last year was an aberration due to the coaching change and subsequent change in offensive philosophy. If Amare comes to the run and gun Warriors and sucks then I’d start worrying, but until the Manchild is allowed to roam free I’ll have my reservations.
Check out Goallineblitz - Free Football MMORPG
Build players, Build teams, watch games...
http://goallineblitz.com/game/signup.pl?ref=4892220
by FLAxwless on Jun 28, 2009 12:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
1) I get it… you hate EWA and PER. No need to bring it back up. We went over this discussion last time.
We went over in that I said it wasn’t substantiated and why it was flawed. You have yet to indicate why it’s useful beyond that Hollinger and ESPN calculate it for you. You have yet to indicate why these flaws don’t make analysis derived from it less than useful.
2) The reference to PER was used to show how much better Amare is compared to Biedrins. PER was used in lieu of EFF, Roland Rating, Win Shares, because it is easier to find past seasons PER. However, whatever system you use (objective and subjective) Amare >>> BIedrins.
If PER is an imprecise measure with a flaw in it, using it to do a comparison runs the risk of being flawed. That you can find PER doesn’t validate the measure. It just means you can find it. Not every measure indicates Amare >>> Biedrins. Some do. Some don’t. I am of the mind that Stoudemire has been better than Biedrins mostly, but you haven’t demonstrated that, and relying on a measure because you can find it? Weak.
3) Regarding the career numbers were used for their ease of reference and more relatable for most users than rebounding rates or rebounding %. I did look at those but felt career averages proved my point just as well.
Making it easier to relate to most users doesn’t make it accurate, or meaningful. It makes it propaganda. Finding numbers that you felt “proved [your] point” because they were easier for others to understand is cherry picking. In this case, it’s also irresponsibly misleading if you’re actually trying to run a real statistical comparison as opposed to coming to a conclusion, and then finding the numbers that support that conclusion.
by jae on Jun 28, 2009 12:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Here we go again...
1) Ok. You don’t have to read any of my post then. We’ll just save ourselves the trouble.
2) They’re numbers used to support the statement that Amare > Biedrins. Please show me which OVERALL Player Ratings show that Biedrins is >> Amare? I checked them all and each time Amare >> Biedrins. I didn’t post them all, but I did check.
3) It’s not propaganda or misleading when all the statistics and my interpretation come to the same conclusion:
- Biedrins rebounding/defense >> Amare.
- Amre’s offense >>>>>>>>>> Biedrins.
Just because I chose to use career averages over rebound rates or rebound % shouldn’t disqualify my statement or make it propaganda.
Anything else you want to nitpick. I’m a firm believer that you use numbers and observation in evaluation of players and my post reflect this. They are neither full statistical studies or are they fully observational pieces. They combine my opinion and statistics. If you’re expecting one or the other you don’t have to read the things I post.
Check out Goallineblitz - Free Football MMORPG
Build players, Build teams, watch games...
http://goallineblitz.com/game/signup.pl?ref=4892220
by FLAxwless on Jun 28, 2009 12:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comparing EWA is pointless unless the said players actually continue putting up the same numbers. That seems to be the biggest question about Amare: can he play to the level (or better) that he has been all these years?
Confident Marco Belinelli supporter
by Doctor Kajita on Jun 28, 2009 11:02 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
PER is a bad evaluator for comparing Andris and Amare ...
… precisely because PER rewards a player for taking a lot of shots, which Andris doesn’t do.
This doesn’t mean Andris is better or as good. It does mean that any measure based on PER is going to be biased towards Amare simply because the primary flaw in PER is a big part of the difference between these two players.
by Ronaldinho on Jun 28, 2009 12:13 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Using any rating system you want... Roland Ratings, NBA.com EFF, Win Shares. Amre >>> Biedrins
Even without using any rating system it should be clear that Amare is better than Biedrins.
Amare has All*Star appearances and had been possible MVP candidate in the past. What about Biedrins?
It surprises me some are actually trying to debate the fact that Amare > Biedrins. Yes, Biedrins is a better rebounder/defender but Amare all world offensive game more then compensates for the difference. You’ll find very few C who can outscore Amare.
Check out Goallineblitz - Free Football MMORPG
Build players, Build teams, watch games...
http://goallineblitz.com/game/signup.pl?ref=4892220
by FLAxwless on Jun 28, 2009 12:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I want to use a measure that’s not on your list. There are flaws in all the ones you suggest. There are other measures that do not suggest Amare >>> Biedrins. Better? Perhaps, but not in the degree you’re suggesting.
It surprises me some are actually trying to debate the fact that Amare > Biedrins.
It should surprise you since people aren’t doing that. I am not arguing as such. This statement is a strawman, that you really should be somewhat ashamed of.
I am arguing that the “analysis” you presented is junk because it’s contrived. It bothers me greatly when what is really opinion gets wrapped up with numbers to support an a priori conclusion as you have done in many cases in your post.
by jae on Jun 28, 2009 12:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What measure can you provide then?
Again, please show me the measure you want to use so I can reference it in the future. I just work with what I’m given. I welcome any and all knowledge.
I am arguing that the "analysis" you presented is junk because it’s contrived. It bothers me greatly when what is really opinion gets wrapped up with numbers to support an a priori conclusion as you have done in many cases in your post.
That’s fine. Just simply stop reading anything I post then and save ourselves the trouble. You may find it as junk, but luckily I don’t write for you or anyone in particular. I actually write these posts because I enjoy doing so. If you have constructive criticism or want a good discussion fine. If you want to come in here and call my stuff “junk” and “propoganda” then feel free save us the trouble and stop reading/replying.
Like I said in the other reply… I use both opinion and statistics in my posts. If that doesn’t float your boat then you don’t have to read.
Check out Goallineblitz - Free Football MMORPG
Build players, Build teams, watch games...
http://goallineblitz.com/game/signup.pl?ref=4892220
by FLAxwless on Jun 28, 2009 12:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wins Produced, though it has some issues with some players (as all measures do) was actually derived based on win probability. Win score, an abbreviated version of it that has a high enough correspondence to wins produced to be an easier to calculate proxy, is also a better measure.
There is no problem with using both opinion and statistics. The problem is that you had an opinion, and then found statistics that supported it in a manner that was misleading, like using per game comparisons because it “proved your point”. Since it’s an illogical comparison to rate their relative rebounding abilities, it doesn’t prove your point. It’s just trying to use numbers to follow a conclusion you had already come to independent of the numbers. If you wanted to “prove your point” you have to use something that addresses you point. You didn’t.
by jae on Jun 28, 2009 3:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So you know what I did now?
I did not have an opinion and then cherry pick statistics that only support my data.
I looked at all the data I had available to me: ESPN.com, NBA.com, and 82games.com and drew my conclusions from there.
Just because I did not reference the statistics from every source does not mean I am publishing propaganda. Every source I looked at had Amare ahead of Biedrins in player ratings. Every source I looked at showed Biedrins is a better rebounder/defender, which I even stated:
People like to make a big deal about the loss in rebounding and shot blocking but Amare averages 9 rebounds and 1.5 blks for his career (high 2.1/ blks and 9.6 rebounds) compared to Andris who averaged 8.2 rebounds and 1.2 blks (high 1.7/blks and 11.2 rebounds). Andris averages are weighted down by his early career numbers and I’ll concede Andris is a better defender than Amare but the difference in defense is smaller than the wide gap on the offensive end. Amare scores more points, has a great FT% for a big man, and has the ability to score away from the key.
Choosing to use career stats instead of rebound rate or rebound % does not change the assertion (which goes against the “cherry picked” stats) that Biedrins is a better rebounder/defender but that Amare’s offensive output makes up for the defensive short comings and then some. That’s not propaganda or cherry picking statistics… that’s writing to make it more accessible to your audience.
However, I guess you were right here when I wrote this so you know that I picked stats to support my opinion.
Check out Goallineblitz - Free Football MMORPG
Build players, Build teams, watch games...
http://goallineblitz.com/game/signup.pl?ref=4892220
by FLAxwless on Jun 28, 2009 9:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
First of all, who’s saying that Amare ISN’T better? You keep making this assertion, but I don’t see a lot of people saying Biedrins is better. Or, really, anyone. That’s just not the only issue here. It’s a question of HOW MUCH better, and how much we have to pay for it.
I’d say it surprises me that somebody on the internet was making up assertions that have nothing to do with what his opponents are saying, but, well, I’ve been on the internet before.
As for the All-star appearances and MVP votes, you’ve stumbled upon two measures which primarily mean one thing:
Amare was the leading scorer on a winning team. I think you’ll find that players who score a lot on a winning team get all-star votes and MVP votes, regardless of whether or not they score those points in a way that really helps their team win (let’s call that the Alan Iverson effect).
Furthermore, what makes you think that Amare could repeat those performances on the Warriors? Amare was, briefly, an almost unstoppable scorer – when he was running the pick-and-roll with Nash. But we don’t have a good P&R point guard. Further, Amare’s other great strength is his quickness up and down the floor, which we don’t have a distributor to take advantage of. Add to that that Amare is older and nearing the age where quick big men start to slow down.
In other words: why do you expect that we would get the best version of Amare you can cherry-pick from the last couple of years? Is that realistic?
by Ronaldinho on Jun 28, 2009 12:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So why will Amare be good?
1) The original posts shows how much better Amare is and his impact using EWA (if you don’t like EWA then don’t read the post) and exactly what we should pay for it. So it does answer that question.
2) As for why I think Amare would be great with the Warriors?
- We run a similar system to D’Antoni when he was ultra productive.
- Monta and S-Jax are decent pick and roll passers. Not Nash level but decent.
- To be an dominant offensive player you need at least a high skill level or freakish athleticism.
Just some examples…
Athleticism – Howard
Skill – Duncan
Both – KG, Shaq in his Prime
Amare does not have a high skill level but he does have freakish athleticism even after microfracture surgery (thuse the 3 year window of comparison – I am not cherry picking, but looking at Amare post surgery). Last year I didn’t notice any decline in athleticism in Amare yet we witnessed a decline in production. Most of the Suns team was similar except that the offensive philosophy changed. This leads me to believe Amare can still be a dominant player in our offensive system.
So what about Nash?
Looking at 82 games.com only 57% of Amare’s shots were assisted compared to 64% of Biedrins shots. If we have no trouble feeding Andris we should have no trouble feeding a player like Amare with his superior athleticism.
Check out Goallineblitz - Free Football MMORPG
Build players, Build teams, watch games...
http://goallineblitz.com/game/signup.pl?ref=4892220
by FLAxwless on Jun 28, 2009 1:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
(if you don’t like EWA then don’t read the post)
Who wouldn’t like EWA? She has like 38FFF boobs, plus she’s from Poland.
Thing C
by markdash on Jun 28, 2009 2:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The original posts shows how much better Amare is and his impact using EWA (if you don’t like EWA then don’t read the post) and exactly what we should pay for it. So it does answer that question.
So now we should only respond if we buy into Holliger’s system and your particular interpretation based on one year’s crop of numbers?
Looking at 82 games.com only 57% of Amare’s shots were assisted compared to 64% of Biedrins shots. If we have no trouble feeding Andris we should have no trouble feeding a player like Amare with his superior athleticism.
False conclusion, given that the number of FGA per minute was rather different. The percent of his made FGs that were assisted doesn’t tell us whether or now we had “no trouble” feeing a player. It doesn’t address it at all.
by jae on Jun 28, 2009 4:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So now we should only respond if we buy into Holliger’s system and your particular interpretation based on one year’s crop of numbers?
No, you can respond if you want to discuss anything else but EWA/PER and their merits. We have all heard your issues with EWA/PER in my previous blog, so there’s no need to go into that discussion again. I didn’t create EWA/PER so you can discuss those issue with Hollinger.
However, I’m open to discussing anything else you wish. I’m a fan of debating and believe it or not look forward to the exchange of ideas but at some point you have to realize that certain subjects (such as EWA/PER) people will have to agree to disagree.
False conclusion, given that the number of FGA per minute was rather different. The percent of his made FGs that were assisted doesn’t tell us whether or now we had "no trouble" feeing a player. It doesn’t address it at all.
So what would be a fair conclusion to draw from the shots assisted data? Is it fair to say that Amare is no more reliant than Biedrins on others to create for him?
Check out Goallineblitz - Free Football MMORPG
Build players, Build teams, watch games...
http://goallineblitz.com/game/signup.pl?ref=4892220
by FLAxwless on Jun 28, 2009 9:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The conclusion from the assisted/not assisted is how reliant the player is on others to get his points. It doesn’t tell us how good the teammates were. It is not a measure of how capable the team is of getting that player the ball. Extreme example: A team can only get the ball to a guy one time in a game. They’re inept passers and can’t feed him, so he never has a chance to get baskets, assisted or otherwise. If a guy takes that one shot a night off of an assist and makes it, his % assisted is 100%. This doesn’t indicate that his team is capable of getting him the ball. They only did it once. It indicates that he’s a good finisher when it happens and that if he isn’t getting a pass that would be an assist if he scored off of it, he doesn’t create a shot on his own.
Andris may have had a higher percentage of assisted baskets, but he made fewer baskets and took fewer shots (total and per minute). This says to me that we might well have had trouble getting him the ball, though he was very good at finishing the play in the instances where we did get him the ball. That happened less frequently than Nash was able to get the ball to Stoudemire for an assist though.
It is fair to say that Stoudemire is not more reliant on others than Biedrins appears to be. He is more capable of “creating his own shot”, though Nash was quite capable of getting him the ball when he didn’t have to create his own. Stoudemire is an elite offensive weapon.
The interesting thing with Stoudemire that I just noticed today was that he seemed to be equally efficient when he was getting fed for assists as he was when more of the shots were ones without assists.
by jae on Jun 28, 2009 11:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
1) "(if you don’t like EWA then don’t read the post) "
It’s a little late for that. I didn’t realize how bunk a stat it was until I read it and your defenses of it. Having been a professional statistician in a former career, it always makes me skeptical when somebody without a strong stats background tries to make up a stat to prove a point. Why not leave the stat-creation to the experts?
2) We actually don’t run that similar a system to D’ANtonini. The issue with Amare’s athleticism is that players like him tend to age quickly. I agree he’s got a freakish level of athleticism, but it’s skill players who tend to age well. Players who rely on their athleticism tend to decline quickly the moment their speed starts to drop. Amare is old enough taht we should expect to start seeing that drop in the next couple of years.
As for the number of assisted shots, again we see that you lack a stat’s background, because the problem with that comparison is, AGAIN, how many shots they take. Amare takes far MORE assisted shots than Biedrins, because he shoots so much more. Just because his percentage is a little lower doesn’t really mean anything.
You admit yourself that Monta and SJac are not Nash-level P&R passers. I’m not sure if that calling Monta “Decent” is fair, but whatever, that kind of makes my point: you agree they’re NOT Nash-level passers, only “decent.” Ergo, it would follow that Amare’s production would decline running the P&R with them, as opposed to with Nash, right?
You couldn’t possibly be saying that they’re not as good as Nash, therefore Amare will still do just as well, right? Because that wouldn’t make any sense at all.
by Ronaldinho on Jun 29, 2009 10:05 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
1) "(if you don’t like EWA then don’t read the post) "
It’s a little late for that. I didn’t realize how bunk a stat it was until I read it and your defenses of it. Having been a professional statistician in a former career, it always makes me skeptical when somebody without a strong stats background tries to make up a stat to prove a point. Why not leave the stat-creation to the experts?
So John Hollinger doesn’t have a strong enough statistical background for you?
You can have Hollinger explain it to you…
2) We actually don’t run that similar a system to D’ANtonini. The issue with Amare’s athleticism is that players like him tend to age quickly. I agree he’s got a freakish level of athleticism, but it’s skill players who tend to age well. Players who rely on their athleticism tend to decline quickly the moment their speed starts to drop. Amare is old enough taht we should expect to start seeing that drop in the next couple of years.
How are they not similar as high-octane offenses that are at their best playing baseline to baseline, than the half court set?
The concern regarding athleticism is a legitimate one, but as of last season when healthy Amare didn’t seem to have lost any of it. 26 years old is just entering your prime… sure he may lose some athleticism but he maybe able to make up for it with knowledge. If Amare was 29 I’d be worried but 26 is still young enough to expect that Amare has at least 3 years of his freakish athleticism.
If the injury history is what concerns you there’s no doubting that it’s there and it is a major factor, but IMO the risks/reward is worth the cost (Biedrins + 2 non-rotation players + Bukie (?)). However, if the Raptors were to make a Bosh available for the same package…. I would choose Bosh over Amare in a heartbeat due to the skill vs athleticism factor you mentioned.
As for the number of assisted shots, again we see that you lack a stat’s background, because the problem with that comparison is, AGAIN, how many shots they take. Amare takes far MORE assisted shots than Biedrins, because he shoots so much more. Just because his percentage is a little lower doesn’t really mean anything.
It still means something. It means that Amare is no more reliant on others to feed him the ball then Biedrins is. The fact that he shoots so much more shows that Amare is better offensive option than Biedrins and that he is better able to create his own shot.
Also Biedrins gets those passes as a non-focal point of the offense. I’m sure if the Warriors acquire a offensive talent like Amare they’d tailor the offense to him and run more pick and rolls.
You admit yourself that Monta and SJac are not Nash-level P&R passers. I’m not sure if that calling Monta "Decent" is fair, but whatever, that kind of makes my point: you agree they’re NOT Nash-level passers, only "decent." Ergo, it would follow that Amare’s production would decline running the P&R with them, as opposed to with Nash, right?
You couldn’t possibly be saying that they’re not as good as Nash, therefore Amare will still do just as well, right? Because that wouldn’t make any sense at all.
I didn’t know that P&R was the only way to score. Sure Nash made Amare’s life easier, but Amare is a talented offensive player in his own right. He is the fastest and most explosive big man, has a mid-range jumpshot, and shoots a great FT%. So his efficiency in the P&R may drop but Amare has enough of a skill set to create his own shot.
If i remember correctly he even had some 40 point games 2 seasons ago when Nash didn’t play. Also, Jae recently found that Amare’s output did not suffer when Nash left the floor last year.
I’m not saying that these risks are not there but the risk/reward is worth the price of Biedrins + 2 non-rotation players + Bukie (?) especially considering how it would improve the team. I feel that Amare is young enough to not worry about his athleticism going away so suddenly and that even without Nash he’s an elite offensive weapon due to his aforementioned athleticism, mid-range shot, and high FT%.
Check out Goallineblitz - Free Football MMORPG
Build players, Build teams, watch games...
http://goallineblitz.com/game/signup.pl?ref=4892220
by FLAxwless on Jun 29, 2009 10:56 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
“It still means something. It means that Amare is no more reliant on others to feed him the ball then Biedrins is. The fact that he shoots so much more shows that Amare is better offensive option than Biedrins and that he is better able to create his own shot..”
You’re misreading the stat. (Although I agree with you that Amare is better able to create his own shot.)
Imagine that both players played on teams with horrible passers, and got no assisted buckets for a game.
Which player’s production would decline more, in total?
Amare’s.
He’s actually MORE dependent on his teammates to get him the ball, because he takes MORE assisted shots.
Amare is a very productive scorer regardless, but you’re fixating on one stat and ignoring the context of that stat (the rate at which both players shoot). That’s just lousy stats.
It all depends on what you’re trying to measure.
As for John Hollinger’s PER, I think it’s a terrible stat. If you shoot something like 32% on two-pointers, it thinks you help your team every time you jack up a shot, which is clearly false. WP is a much, much better number. I believe the bonus for low-percentage, high-volume shooters is the primary difference between those two numbers, however – but it boggles me why Hollinger continues to flog a number which has such an obvious flaw. In a commercial or academic context, that just wouldn’t fly – but I suspect that Hollinger now has such a high-profile gig that he is simply protecting it by refusing to acknowledge how people have improved on his work.
Buike strikes me as the definition of a replacement level player, and including him in the deal doesn’t bother me. Including Wright or other non-rotation players doesn’t bother me. And I’m pretty sure Amare is better than Biedrins – with one key caveat.
That caveat is that I think most fans undervalue Biedrins, because he’s not flashy. He’s white. He doesn’t have “game.” He doesn’t throw down monster jams. He has silly hair. He doesn’t have massive biceps. Furthermore, when his flaws are exposed (his primary flaw being how he struggles to defend the stronger inside players in the league) it’s really obvious to everyone.
The stuff he does do well – really, really well – however, is quiet. He rebounds. He’s always in position to be the easy dish. He makes the “easy” shots – which don’t look so spectacular, but, of course, count for just as many points as the flashier ones. He’s a very solid help defender – but even great help defenders end up getting posterized a lot, by the nature of the job – so a lot of fans see Biedrins getting dunked on and think it’s his fault, not Monta’s of Mags for failing to stay in front of his man.
My larger concern with getting Amare is that I’m not sure I understand the long-term strategy. Most people are acting like it’s as simple as:
Step 1: Acquire an all-star forward.
Step 2: <…>
Step 3: Profit.
If pressed, they wave their hands and say something about making the playoffs.
But the goal is to win a championship, and I don’t think that we can do that after this trade without some other major adjustments.
What I’m afraid of is that we’re talking about this year’s equivalent of the Magette signing. “Oh, no, everybody thinks we’re a joke! Let’s go make a big splash, even if it hurts us in the long term, that way people will take us seriously!”
You seem to be focused on the best-case scenario, which, I admit, is pretty good: Amare is a dominant scoring forward who thrives in Nellie-ball, and takes shots away from less-efficient scorers like Jackson. Running the P&R, he frees up players like Jackson to be their best selves on the court. Monta comes back healthy (or is adequately replaced by Curry) and the team makes it into the playoffs easily.
But isn’t there also a worst-case scenario: Amare scores a lot but the team’s defensive problems get worse because of their inability to close of possession with defensive rebounds, wiping out the gains. He gets his big extension and eases off the accelerator a bit. Jackson sees the accolades he gets for scoring so much and decides that the way to be a team leader is to shoot more, hurting the team. Monta never develops real PG skills and thus never learns to set up Amare properly, and Amare pouts because he wants the offense to run through him but we don’t have the players to do it with.
Now, obviously both of those are extremes, and I’d agree with you that the worst-case scenario isn’t too likely. But I wonder why everybody who’s dismissing the worst-case scenario so blythely is accepting the best-case scenario as the likely outcome.
by Ronaldinho on Jun 29, 2009 11:45 AM 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 © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
