Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: The Most Dangerous Division in Sports

Just how valuable would the 6th pick be in a trade?

At the sixth spot, it looks like the draft will come down to three guys for us: Aminu, Johnson, and Monroe. These players all bring some interesting options to the table, but let's not talk about them right now. That topic has been beaten like a dead horse. The question is who can we get in trade that will be a difference maker right away? Is the 6th pick and some interesting trade pieces worth a star that another team is looking to dump?

How about a player like Andre Iguodala? The Sixers will pick Turner, of course. How will that effect Iggy's spot? On the Jazz, maybe Andrei Kirilenko? If Boozer leaves, and the team is focused around Williams and Milsap, is there still room for AK-47? Are trading for these guys realistic? I dunno.

When looking at our three biggest contracts, Monta and Maggette seem to be the most expendable. According to the Golden State Worriers blog, we were the worst rebounding team in NBA history. So Biedrins leaving, who is one of the best rebounding centers in the league, doesn't make sense at all. Of the three, I'm more inclined to trade Maggette because he's older and doesn't really fit on our team that well. We really need a 3 who has a more diverse skillset and can play both sides of the court compared to what he currently can do. Although we just signed him to a contract, Williams should go as well. Assuming we could bring back a player of Kirilenko's or Iguodala's caliber, we have a logjam of one-dimensional players at the 3 spot. Morrow won't be under contract and is still very raw, and Azubuike is untradable because of injury. Buike did look a little bit more rounded in his short stint this season anyway.

Quicksave_ashx_medium

  What's this? A potential Warrior that can play defense?



I really like the idea of Maggette, Williams, and the sixth pick for Iggy. The Sixers will be getting back two of our most productive players and a little cap relief for the next few seasons. Iguodala, as the star player who was tasked with salvaging his flagging franchise, failed in his expectations. ............Really, is this reality? A fair assessment of his work for a poor Sixers team? Of course not, but I'm willing to go with popular opinion as long as that's what the Sixers' front office believes too. To me he's capable of answering our biggest question mark: what do we do at the 3 spot? The answer is to acquire the 4th best small forward in the league in terms of wins produced. He's capable of almost everything that we need from a swingman: rebounding, excellent passing, and good defensive ability. He's also still young and could grow with the team (at 26 his production's probably apexed, but he will be this good for some time). He can't shoot the 3 all that well (or shoot in general), but we could live with that given his excellent skillset and the abundance of great scorers we already have. Most interesting of all, Monta might actually defer to a player who was the star on his previous team. A controlled Ellis is more likely to morph back into the 07-08 season guy whom we all are praying for to return. 

So we would be looking at this kind of lineup:

1-Curry/Watson
2-Ellis/Morrow
3-Iguodala/Azubuike
4-Wright/Randolph
5-Biedrins/Turiaf

A little small, sure, but with a high degree of talent; and if Berri is to be believed, one that could reach 50+ wins in the West.
100024662_medium

I'm pretty sure Gasol owned him after this photo was taken, but that's not the point.



Kirilenko seems less likely given his rebound in production this season. He's been talked about before in great detail, but he's a star capable of playing elite defense. There's also a chance he could return to his days of former glory. Who knows, maybe he's been shackled down all these years in Sloan's system, waiting to become the superstar he resembled earlier in his career. Even if that never happens, he's already quite good. He's great at getting the offensive rebound (twice as good as Iggy in fact) and not afraid to guard any position. A lineup of

1-Curry
2-Ellis
3-Kirilenko
4-Wright
5-Biedrins

is longer, and might be good for playoff contention in our stacked conference. Assuming they pan out, I could see immediate uses for any combination of Johnson, Aminu, Monroe, or Aldrich in Utah. They need to get bigger and more athletic, and this is their chance.

I'm not sure about the rest of you, but I am tired of waiting for prospects to pan out. Tired of high-upside guys getting yanked for basic stuff like boxing out. I want to win right now. Getting these players (or some others) would help do that right away without necessarily sacrificing our future. What do you think? And are there any other trades out there?

Poll
What should we do with the 6th pick?
Draft Johnson, Aminu, or Monroe
129 votes
Trade for Iguodala
169 votes
Trade for Kirilenko
35 votes
Other (specify in comments)
21 votes

354 votes | Poll has closed

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!

Comment 170 comments  |  1 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

It sounds like there is a good chance that the Sixers are going to trade the #2 pick, so that would likely mean they would keep Iggy, and Kirilenko is not worth trading for anymore. The guy is not what he used to be and can’t seem to stay healthy. We don’t need another guy who always gets hurt.

by duballers23 on May 22, 2010 2:03 PM PDT reply actions  

I have to disagree about Kirilenko. He’s a much improved contributer this season and seems to finally have escaped Sloan’s doghouse. Check the stats I linked, they tell most of the story. Health is another issue. But I would take that gamble seeing how much he could give us though.

by Jaguarundi on May 22, 2010 6:11 PM PDT up reply actions  

His contract is expiring. It’s now a really good trade chip.

heart of a champion, will of the warrior.

by cap'n hack on May 24, 2010 12:33 PM PDT up reply actions  

Ok so I didn't realize it and that does give it some value, but how much really?

I think it gives it more value bc/ or freeing up cap space than as a trade chip. How many players have the Dubs had with “valuable expiring contracts” that have gone to wast over the past few years?

by freerandolph on May 24, 2010 12:53 PM PDT up reply actions  

It means that at worst, he’s a one-year cap burden and at best allows Utah to take some slightly overpaid or overyeared guys off someone’s hands. Expiring contracts probably do get a little too much hype as a franchise builder, but they’re definitely useful, especially when they’re attached to a solid player like AK47.

heart of a champion, will of the warrior.

by cap'n hack on May 24, 2010 1:04 PM PDT up reply actions  

You want a good one year rent-a-player instead of Aminu or others in the draft possibly including Wesley?

by freerandolph on May 24, 2010 2:05 PM PDT up reply actions  

To ditch a long term contract and free up some cap space to go after a top notch free agent? Yeah, I’d do it. We have enough good players, we need to get a great one. Aminu and Johnson are very unlikely to be that guy, so I’d start making the moves to go get someone who can be.

heart of a champion, will of the warrior.

by cap'n hack on May 24, 2010 3:18 PM PDT up reply actions  

If we could do a sign and trade for Kirilenko and get a good deal, that’d be something to consider, e.g. Kirilenko making <12 million a year for 4 years and taking the Jazz 1st round pick as well, while we send our #6 and… uh… we got nothing to trade other than a #6 that the Jazz would want.

Iggie… maybe, but I don’t think they want anything we have either. Who do we trade for these guys? We’d have to make room for their salaries.

Go Andris's free throw shooting!

by Naticus2 on May 22, 2010 2:35 PM PDT reply actions  

a: Kirilenko is still under contract. He can’t be part of a “sign and trade” when he’s already signed for next season at $17.8mil
 
b: Sign and trades can’t happen before the draft. Free agent signings can’t happen until the free agent signing period, which is well after the draft.

by jae on May 22, 2010 3:02 PM PDT up reply actions  

Don’t underhanded deals like this go on all the time in the NBA? Just because it doesn’t happen in the official time period doesn’t mean that there can’t be any negotiations

by Jaguarundi on May 22, 2010 4:14 PM PDT up reply actions  

Just because it doesn’t happen in the official time period doesn’t mean that there can’t be any negotiations

In terms of a sign and trade (a moot point for Kirilenko since he’s already signed, but I did’t bring it up) An “underhand” sign -and-trade is ridiculously difficult. The free agent signing period absolutely means that there can’t by rule be any negotiations. Can there be back room discussions? There probably are.

But picks aren’t going to move on the promise of a later sign and trade. It’s a promise that the teams can’t be sure they can deliver on. Sign-and-trades are difficult in other circumstances, but since it requires a player wanting it to happen (something that almost every fantasy s-n-t seems to regard as immaterial) it’s especially hard when the player hasn’t negotiated with other teams who can acquiring him on the open market. In terms of one for a draft pick to be consummated later with S-N-T, it’s too improbable to spend time thinking about the possibilities.

No agent is going to let his player agree to the underhand sign and trade before weighing other options, options that he hasn’t seen. And no team wants an agent in a position where he can decide he wants to change the terms of a deal in that time between the draft and when the “sign” part can happen. “Mr. Reilly, we’ve decided we don’t like the offer any more. An agreement? How could we have had an agreement? Negotiations with other teams before the ‘dead period’ aren’t allowed. You know that. Of course I’m not blackmailing you with a threat of leaking this, but you know how memos get faxed to to the commissioner’s office accidentally…”

The deals that do get agreed upon that happen later are rarely the sign-and-trade variety. They’re of the variety where the players aren’t calling part of the shots. They happen when a player comes off BYC and as such changes the cap dynamics.

by jae on May 22, 2010 5:48 PM PDT up reply actions  

We could wait a year to get him, then. I was just speaking hypothetically anyway. My point was, we can’t get him.

Go Andris's free throw shooting!

by Naticus2 on May 23, 2010 4:24 PM PDT up reply actions  

Knowing our luck

Cousins or Johnson would drop to 6 if we trade.

"It's like Will Smith, remember the Fresh Prince? Get the ball don't let nobody else shoot? That's kinda what the offense can be sometimes, and they're just standing around waiting for Monta to make a play"
-MT2

by golden_solitude on May 22, 2010 3:03 PM PDT reply actions  

I’d probably go for Johnson instead of a trade. But I’m concerned about his lack of passing ability. And he probably won’t drop. If that’s the case, I want Cousins also.

by Jaguarundi on May 22, 2010 4:15 PM PDT up reply actions  

A little small, sure, but with a high degree of talent; and if Berri is to be believed, one that could reach 50+ wins in the West.

He’s right-if Nelson plays our bigs like AB, AR, and BW consistent minutes, and no small ball, but that will never happen.

Stephen Curry is the future.
We need to save this planet. Go Green, recycle, ride public transportation, use cantines. Anything you can do!

by GovernorStephCurry on May 22, 2010 4:33 PM PDT reply actions  

Just one probem…nobody would trade Iguodala for a D-leaguer, a top 10 pick, and Maggete. That’s not going to happen.

by LarryLegendofOracle on May 22, 2010 4:45 PM PDT reply actions  

This deal actually doesn't seem too farfetched to me if the sixers want anyone available with the 6th pick.

Unless the sixers think Turner can work with Iggy, or trade the 2nd pick, I bet this deal would at least cause them to pause and think about it.

by freerandolph on May 22, 2010 5:42 PM PDT up reply actions  

Would you trade Iguodala for Maggette’s contract, a D-leaguer, and a 6th pick in a potentially 5 player draft?

by LarryLegendofOracle on May 22, 2010 5:58 PM PDT up reply actions  

Igoudala for a D-Leaguer and a top-10 pick (not Maggette) is actually feasible

If you think about it, we traded J-Rich, a similar player, at a similar stage of his career (at the time, a 6 year veteran) for pick #7. Igoudala is a 6 year veteran right now.

"It's like Will Smith, remember the Fresh Prince? Get the ball don't let nobody else shoot? That's kinda what the offense can be sometimes, and they're just standing around waiting for Monta to make a play"
-MT2

by golden_solitude on May 22, 2010 6:01 PM PDT up reply actions  

I dunno. If you look at J Rich’s numbers in the playoffs this year, I think he might be a bit better right now.

by Jaguarundi on May 22, 2010 6:35 PM PDT up reply actions  

whoops, meant to link:
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/r/richaja01.html

even looking at his regular season performance, he’s playing the best of his career.

by Jaguarundi on May 22, 2010 6:38 PM PDT up reply actions  

Just wondering- is there one for college ball?

That would be extremely helpful

by LarryLegendofOracle on May 23, 2010 2:26 PM PDT up reply actions  

Playing with Steve Nash does that for you….

by Missing Barry on May 23, 2010 2:37 PM PDT up reply actions  

No, it doesn’t necessarily. He produced those wins. I’m guessing that system is right for him.

by LarryLegendofOracle on May 23, 2010 3:29 PM PDT up reply actions  

In terms of scoring efficiency, Nash creates lots of good looks for guys, improving their efficiency. Richardson is definitely a beneficiary from that in Phoenix…

by Missing Barry on May 23, 2010 4:01 PM PDT up reply actions  

I’m guessing that system is right for him.

Nash is the system.

by LarryLegendofOracle on May 23, 2010 4:41 PM PDT up reply actions  

Ha, can’t disagree with that.

by Missing Barry on May 23, 2010 4:49 PM PDT up reply actions  

Different players

but yes. That being said, I love JRich and hate fact we ever got to see “We Believe” for a full year

by tafkasam on May 22, 2010 7:29 PM PDT up reply actions  

what we saw really wasn't that different than we believe

And we were the best record ever to not make the playoffs

by freerandolph on May 23, 2010 8:48 PM PDT up reply actions  

Imagine that team without Wright and with Richardson?

by LarryLegendofOracle on May 23, 2010 9:28 PM PDT up reply actions  

I would

love for Johnson to fall to us. I heard he is a underrated passer as well

Golden State Warriors Fan 4 Life!!!
The Golden Future
PF: Anthony Randolph
PG: Stephen Curry
Can't wait until GS wins a championship!!!

by GSW9 on May 22, 2010 4:55 PM PDT reply actions  

Wow

I didn’t realize Q-Rich, Matt Barnes and Carlos Delfino are all “better” than Paul Pierce.
Or that Ben Wallace is “better” than…..anybody.

Yuck.

by caseycheesecake on May 22, 2010 5:33 PM PDT reply actions  

Ben Wallace still puts up good defensive numbers

well, he did this season.
Also- it is worth noting the difference between “better” and “more productive.”

Hi Lisa. Hi Super Nintendo Chalmers.

by Reverend_Randy on May 22, 2010 5:46 PM PDT up reply actions  

Also- it is worth noting the difference between "better" and "more productive."

Considering how much some here look into stats I will ask you where do you think we have to draw the line?

Don't worry about the world coming to an end today. It is already tomorrow in Australia

by dubzfan on May 22, 2010 10:42 PM PDT up reply actions  

I would be perfectly content with using the word better to describe a more productive player

but Casey seems to think it odd that Barnes could be better than Pierce, even though Pierce is getting and old and was actually injured for a lot of last year.

Hi Lisa. Hi Super Nintendo Chalmers.

by Reverend_Randy on May 23, 2010 12:54 AM PDT up reply actions  

Well...

Usually people use stats like this to see who is better. And since the object of the game is to win, it seems fair to call a player that helps contribute more to wins the “better” player. Unless there are injuries or some confounding variable at play.
That said I think this stat can be a little helpful, but I don’t put too much stock in any of these stats.

by freerandolph on May 23, 2010 8:54 PM PDT up reply actions  

Well, WP is very technical, and it doesn’t reward the things we tend to associate with “best” players. But that is the point, to debunk ignorant ideas that have been going around for a long time.

Stephen Curry is the future.
We need to save this planet. Go Green, recycle, ride public transportation, use cantines. Anything you can do!

by GovernorStephCurry on May 23, 2010 9:35 PM PDT up reply actions  

We know that you don't

you’ve made it very clear.

Hi Lisa. Hi Super Nintendo Chalmers.

by Reverend_Randy on May 23, 2010 10:02 PM PDT up reply actions  

Speaking for myself, what gets under my skin is when people object to a statistic, but don’t really know why or have good reason to. I don’t know if that’s true in your case, but when the objection seems to be along the lines of it “just doesn’t seem right”….well, that does bug me. I have my concerns with WP, too, but mine are because I know statistics and have looked into it some. It doesn’t make it a worthless stat, and while I don’t really look at it, I do think it’s somewhat useful in terms of helping us figure out what attributes are important and what aren’t, which leads to a better understanding of a players value when you check out his production. I also don’t think it’s entirely worthless and I wouldn’t simply dismiss it if someone brought it up – it’s not a stat to end all stats, but it is a piece of information worth considering.

by Missing Barry on May 24, 2010 7:20 AM PDT up reply actions  

I'm not dissmissing it entirely

but how do you use a stat that says Barnes contribute to wins more than Pierce. There are quite a few examples like that that seem to contradict the reality of how much players contribute to wins. Yes I know Pierce is getting old and has a lot of stars on his team, but he still contributes to wins more than Barnes and is the far better player.
  So do we ignore these things that stats tell us and say that they are rare?
But if we ignore some things but not others how do we decide what to ignore and what to not ignore? And then whats the point of the stat?
Do we explain things like Pierce’s relatively low status in that stat by saying he plays with good players who demand the ball more than he does? If we do that could we come up with explainations for why many other players are ranked too high or too low because they are on good teams where they don’t get an opportunity to be the star, or on bad teams where the opposing defense can focus on them?

My point is that no one ever takes these stats at face value, and after analyzing and interpreting them, they get a lot fuzzier and less concrete than a lot of people on this website act like they are.

by freerandolph on May 24, 2010 1:00 PM PDT up reply actions  

Here seems like as good a place as any to insert Basketball Reference’s Neil Paine’s scientific prediction for the Celtics/Magic series, from ESPN’s Stat Geek Smackdown…

Orlando’s opponent-adjusted efficiency differential in the regular-season (+7.12) was the NBA’s best, dwarfing the Celtics’ +3.37; the team with the better mark in that category traditionally wins the conference finals more than 70% of the time, and 78% of the time when the difference is as big as 3.75 in one team’s favor (as is the case here). Boston will put up a good fight, but unless the Celtics can consistently play dominant D like they did on Christmas (and in the final three games of the Cleveland series), they can’t take four of seven from Orlando."

LOL. Aura, Mystique and Leprechauns 3, Pointyheaded Stat Geeks 0…

There will be no extra point!

by Sleepy Freud on May 24, 2010 1:22 PM PDT up reply actions   1 recs

Aura, Mystique and Leprechauns 3, Pointyheaded Stat Geeks 0…

 or 22% 3 and 78% zero?

Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.

by Skeptic con Urquell on May 24, 2010 2:18 PM PDT up reply actions  

how do you use a stat that says Barnes contribute to wins more than Pierce

I go into this a little down below. If you understand what the stat is telling us and how it’s calculated, and look at it in context it can help tell us a lot about a players overall productivity. Like I said with Barnes, I believe his huge rebounding numbers for a SF are the primary driver behind this, especially since WP may overvalue rebounding by giving them too much credit for a defensive stop. In this case, I wouldn’t look at WP for a Pierce v Barnes comparison. In other cases I might be more willing to look at what WP says, though.

by Missing Barry on May 24, 2010 1:30 PM PDT up reply actions  

You just proved my point.

So you wouldn’t use it for Pierce v Barnes, but you would use it for other comparisons? How do you choose which ones to ignore and which ones to think are legit? I guess you can find why a player might be overvalued (Barnes because of rebounds) and then say that is why the stat is wrong in that particular case, but that is just using the statistics to back up preconceived notions of who is better.
I’m sure the stat does have some value, but there are serious problems that you can’t ignore.

by freerandolph on May 24, 2010 2:10 PM PDT up reply actions  

Like I get into a bit below, there are ways/reasons to choose, but it definitely takes some understanding of what’s going on behind the scenes….

by Missing Barry on May 24, 2010 2:21 PM PDT up reply actions  

Pierce is still at an all star level

Matt will and always will be a role player. It’s that simple

Don't worry about the world coming to an end today. It is already tomorrow in Australia

by dubzfan on May 23, 2010 10:59 PM PDT up reply actions  

Pierce doesn't really play like a star anymore, though

I really don’t know if it’s “as simple as that.” The fact that this stat is telling us it isn’t that simple is worth noting.

Hi Lisa. Hi Super Nintendo Chalmers.

by Reverend_Randy on May 23, 2010 11:16 PM PDT up reply actions  

I think it’s odd that Barnes is above Pierce, too. Looking closer, I’m guessing it’s almost entirely because of the rebounding advantage. I have concerns about the way WP handles rebounding/defense, so it’s not clear to me it’s going to accurately value Barnes. I’ll also note that Barnes was almost always the 2nd best rebounder on his team on the court – not sure if that means we should think of him as closer to a PF in terms of his rebounding or not….

by Missing Barry on May 24, 2010 7:26 AM PDT up reply actions   1 recs

Troy Murphy, one of the most dominant bigs in the game, would agree with your assessment of WP48

go rowand

by lincypoo i wuv u on May 24, 2010 7:53 AM PDT up reply actions  

Troy Murphy defies pretty much every metric thrown at him so I think that’s a little unfair.

by Jaguarundi on May 24, 2010 12:15 PM PDT up reply actions  

that shows that there are faults with the metrics.

If you’re going to pick and choose which results to listen to, the metric loses a lot of respectability.

by freerandolph on May 24, 2010 1:02 PM PDT up reply actions  

Well, with some understanding of how the metric work and what it’s weaknesses are, you can “pick and choose” based on legitimate criteria. Troy Murphy tends to be one of the most extreme, if not THE most extreme, outlier that fits that criteria. Good efficiency numbers. Good rebounding numbers (that I believe are less valuable than they appear, though I have no evidence to support that). Absolutely horrible defense. That kind of player is going to be overrated by WP.

by Missing Barry on May 24, 2010 1:43 PM PDT up reply actions  

Another note – Murphy’s rebounding is hugely skewed towards defensive rebounding, which might lead him to get a lot more defensive credit than he deserves.

by Missing Barry on May 24, 2010 1:45 PM PDT up reply actions  

Important point...

You, Jae and Ronaldinho have discussed this before, and I do think you are on to something. WP does seem to give too much of the credit for the defensive stop to the actual rebounder. On a team level, defensive rebounding is pretty much statistically equivalent to good defense (outside of creating turnovers) but the same isn’t true on an individual basis. Now, I think that part of the reason that the metric can get away with this is that, for the most part, good individual rebounders tend to be good defensive players. If that wasn’t the case then WP wouldn’t be so good at predicting a team’s wins right? Unfortunately players like Murphy who play absolutely horrible defense and focus their effort almost entirely on securing the defensive rebound end up looking pretty wacky with WP.

Seems to me like it’s a good metric that has its heart in the right place (giving players credit for the things which actually win games) that would benefit from having better defensive stats to draw from. Defense is just a huge blind spot statistically at the moment, so any metric you can come up with that draws from the boxscore is going to have a hard time with the way they account for defense.

"I could be chasing an untamed ornithoid without cause."

by olympicmike on May 24, 2010 2:02 PM PDT up reply actions   1 recs

I think your points hit the nail on the head, and I hadn’t even thought about how much it makes sense that defensive rebounding is basically the same as defense on the team level, very good point.

Now, I think that part of the reason that the metric can get away with this is that, for the most part, good individual rebounders tend to be good defensive players

This is exactly it, I think. Multicollinearity can be a problem like that, and when you think about it, the results are exactly what we’d expect given multicollinearity. If regressions are run at the team level to determine coefficients, and team defense and rebounding were highly correlated, that could potentially mess up their coefficients, while not affecting the model as a whole. When you look at actual individuals using this model, and they have pronounced strengths/weaknesses that are way different than a typical player (like Murphy and defensive rebounding v defense), you might see it give a really odd result for them…..which is exactly what we see.

by Missing Barry on May 24, 2010 2:19 PM PDT up reply actions   1 recs

I have to admit...

I’m not much of a math guy, so I don’t know my way around regressions, coefficients or multicollinearity, but it’s good to know that the theory makes sense to someone who is more familiar with statistics. Just thinking of it from a logic standpoint it made sense to me.

I am intrigued by WP, but I honestly don’t look at it much either. I think it can certainly be a valuable piece of information, but to me any single number is an oversimplification of a player. Having said that, I don’t think I’d argue with Jae or Ronaldinho when they say that you could do a pretty good job building a team using WP as your primary tool.

Golden State Warriors '10-'11 Season: The Return of ^^^^

by olympicmike on May 24, 2010 3:54 PM PDT up reply actions  

you could do a pretty good job building a team using WP as your primary tool.

Probably true, despite my concerns with it (and I have more if anyone wants to discuss it in depth), and I’ll say that if you understand it’s weaknesses, you can do even better building a team.

by Missing Barry on May 24, 2010 5:33 PM PDT up reply actions  

What other concerns do you have? Does it have to do with its inability to take into account say wide-open shots because Kobe is drawing a double team?

Is there any research to suggest that players consistently increase their efficiency when playing next to a star? Not sure how to define a star, is it wrong to point to PPG here?

go rowand

by lincypoo i wuv u on May 26, 2010 2:51 PM PDT up reply actions  

Does it have to do with its inability to take into account say wide-open shots because Kobe is drawing a double team?

Things like this do not concern even a little bit.

My main other concern I haven’t mentioned has to do with the fact that the method is using team level regression to determine coefficients and apply them to the individual. That concerns me. Then the justification for how well it works is to take all the indidivuals, add them up (so we’re back to the team level now), and show how well that correlates to wins (at least that’s my understanding and the justifications I’ve seen so far). Well of course it correlates highly with winning, it was derived at the team level! You’re back where you started, it’s circular logic, and doesn’t necessarily demonstrate that it accurately assesses the individual, even if it accurately asses the team of individuals.

by Missing Barry on May 27, 2010 7:32 AM PDT up reply actions  

Then the justification for how well it works is to take all the indidivuals, add them up (so we’re back to the team level now), and show how well that correlates to wins (at least that’s my understanding and the justifications I’ve seen so far).

That’s half the justification and I agree that on its own, it would be circular. The other, more important part, is the predictive power in in advance of knowing the team wins. Since the statistical performance of individuals is rather consistent even when changing teammates, it’s a reasonable inference that the box score components assigned to the individual are largely a product of that individual. Move a player to another team and the ‘wins’ that player produced tend to transfer with reasonably solid predictability. That’s not circular logic at all.

Strangely, the area where wins produced gets the most flack seems to be in rebounds being “overvalued”. Rebounding is remarkably consistent relative to most other aspects of the game. Changing teams doesn’t have much impact on a player’s rebounding. Adding better rebounders does help a team’s rebound total and subsequently helps a team win. It seems people have far less of a problem assigning individual credit to scoring and far less of a problem assuming that the scoring component of the model is tied to wins.

by jae on May 27, 2010 8:57 AM PDT up reply actions  

Move a player to another team and the ‘wins’ that player produced tend to transfer with reasonably solid predictability.

I like this test much better. It’s something I’ll have to read up on.

Strangely, the area where wins produced gets the most flack seems to be in rebounds being "overvalued".

A lot of that might have to do with the potential issue I discussed earlier where rebounds, at the team level, could essentially represent defensive stops. So the coefficient for it would include a lot of credit for “defense”, too. Rebounding is incredibly important, though, as we’ve discussed numerous times, and I’m more than satisfied with all the information you’ve given about the worth of rebounding stats.

by Missing Barry on May 27, 2010 10:50 AM PDT up reply actions  

you could do a pretty good job building a team using WP as your primary tool.

but you could do a better job using your brain, the human mind is a lot more flexible than a canned stat.

Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.

by Skeptic con Urquell on May 24, 2010 8:52 PM PDT up reply actions  

but you could do a better job using your brain, the human mind is a lot more flexible than a canned stat.

Understanding that humans are flawed when it comes to their subjective perceptions and using analytical tools to supplement this is using a brain. I see no evidence that remaining as ignorant as you seem to recommend makes for better decisions.

by jae on May 25, 2010 12:13 AM PDT up reply actions  

I see no evidence that remaining as ignorant as you seem to recommend makes for better decisions.

Cause you don’t understand why these guys make these stats or how they do it? They try to shortcut the learning process by creating these indicators to fit the data using the best fit they can find to make them follow what actually happened.Exactly what anyone would do with their brain but without the flexibility to knock out a Murphy without changing their indicator. There is no shortcut to learning the game and the players.

Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.

by Skeptic con Urquell on May 25, 2010 9:10 AM PDT up reply actions  

Exactly what anyone would do with their brain

If you haven’t noticed, our brains aren’t very capable of doing things like this well…..

Also, you know you can make a statistical model that knocks out players like Troy Murphy? I could easily take WP, make a slight alteration to the model, and those exceptions would stop showing up….

by Missing Barry on May 25, 2010 10:02 AM PDT up reply actions  

I could easily take WP, make a slight alteration to the model, and those exceptions would stop showing up….

Then do it and be the new statfreak king? If you can make a better one they will come. There’s endless ways to massage data so I have no doubt you can create something different.
 There’s more trading systems than stocks on the exchanges but they are all just playing with past data in various ways to make them follow what we see live every day.
   If someone can’t pick a player or a stock without a confirming indicator I guess they might think they are useful but to me they just clutter up the landscape in a tail wagging the dog kind of way?

Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.

by Skeptic con Urquell on May 25, 2010 2:16 PM PDT up reply actions  

Then do it

Too much effort for not enough pay. I’ve actually given thought to trying to break my way into the sports world before, but I always come back to the same conclusion – way too much effort for not nearly enough money. Anyways, what I’m talking about here is a “scouting” stat where you identify the players who are big time defensive rebounders but very poor defensive players, and add it as a variable to your model to devalue them some amount.

by Missing Barry on May 25, 2010 2:23 PM PDT up reply actions  

Cause you don’t understand why these guys make these stats or how they do it

Don’t project you personal ignorance on me. I do take the time to understand how the statistical models (a more apt description than ‘stats’) are created.

They try to shortcut the learning process by creating these indicators to fit the data using the best fit they can find to make them follow what actually happened.

That’s simply not true. That is not the purpose of statistical modeling. It’s abundantly clear that you do not have even the slightest bit of understanding to make such a pronouncement either.

There is no shortcut to learning the game and the players.

And a statistical model isn’t a shortcut. You don’t understand that because you don’t have an inkling of a clue as to what a model is for but I’m not content letting your clear misunderstanding masquerade as reality.

by jae on May 25, 2010 12:37 PM PDT up reply actions  

That’s simply not true. That is not the purpose of statistical modeling. It’s abundantly clear that you do not have even the slightest bit of understanding to make such a pronouncement either.

 Haha, So you are trying to tell me they try to fit the data to what didn’t actually happen? What would be the purpose of that? and you say I don’t understand statistical models :>)

Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.

by Skeptic con Urquell on May 25, 2010 2:32 PM PDT up reply actions  

and you say I don’t understand statistical models :>)

I say this because it’s true in abundance. Nothing you write makes me think that you have the slightest bit of a clue.

by jae on May 25, 2010 2:41 PM PDT up reply actions  

It’s also important to realize that because of the position adjustment, the ‘credit’ for rebounds above the position average. Rebounds seem to be real consistent. There’s some cases where a player sees a spike, usually as a wholesale change in responsibilities, but the totals seem to be far less a function of available misses than one would suspect. This suggests that guys who do have real high rebound totals are, at some basic level generating more defensive stops for their team than you’d expect on average. This isn’t necessarily the cleanest way to deal with this. Some metric that indicated the change in defensive stops with and without a player could be more accurate, but those tend not to be as stable as they’re dependent heavily on teammates and “adjustments” to compensate for this tend to create hella large (well, not quite 10^27) confidence intervals making them far less than useful. More data in does not always make for a better predictive model.

Of course, then there’s Murphy, who just defies this.

by jae on May 25, 2010 8:47 AM PDT up reply actions  

Does a rebound really represent a defensive stop on your part? With the exception of centers, how often does someone D up the guy on offense and turn around and grab the board. This must rarely happen to guards right?

go rowand

by lincypoo i wuv u on May 26, 2010 2:53 PM PDT up reply actions  

Does a rebound really represent a defensive stop on your part?

A defensive rebound really means a defensive stop for the team. That’s absolutely undeniable. Crediting the defensive stop to the individual who grabs the rebound is a different issue.

by jae on May 26, 2010 3:15 PM PDT up reply actions  

+1

Don't worry about the world coming to an end today. It is already tomorrow in Australia

by dubzfan on May 25, 2010 1:33 PM PDT up reply actions  

Really, after discussing it more in depth and trying to demonstrate it’s not just a “pick and choose” mentality, you’re going to +1 that now?

by Missing Barry on May 25, 2010 1:47 PM PDT up reply actions  

I couldn't even figure out what he's +1ing

it’s so far away.

Hi Lisa. Hi Super Nintendo Chalmers.

by Reverend_Randy on May 25, 2010 4:08 PM PDT up reply actions  

Hit the “up” button (assuming you care…)

There will be no extra point!

by Sleepy Freud on May 25, 2010 5:07 PM PDT up reply actions  

LOL + 1 fail

Stephen Curry is the future.
We need to save this planet. Go Green, recycle, ride public transportation, use cantines. Anything you can do!

by GovernorStephCurry on May 25, 2010 9:35 PM PDT up reply actions  

Johnson is a team player

hussle on defence, excellent shooter and a dunking MACHINE!! Check his youtube clip. BEASTY.(lol this description reminded me of azubuike though)

by GSWeri on May 22, 2010 5:41 PM PDT reply actions  

I want to go after a big man, preferably a C. If we can’t get Cousins or a big man from a trade, then drafting Johnson/Monroe would probably be the best option. I like Turner, but not enough to get Brand’s contract in return. The only way I’d get Brand’s contract is if Wall is the no.2 pick (which shouldn’t happen since he’s a lock for no.1), but you never know.

by DubsFan408 on May 22, 2010 6:45 PM PDT reply actions  

Wow, you wouldn’t give up Reggie Williams, Corey Maggette and the 6th pick for Iguodala? Really?

by Missing Barry on May 23, 2010 11:02 AM PDT up reply actions   2 recs

Garbage for gold?
You wouldn’t?

That’s a plus that we first of all, get rid of Maggette, and we’re only giving up Reggie Williams and a 6th overall pick, for one of the league’s best perimeter defenders and an athletic and versatile slashing SF that can pass, too.

by LarryLegendofOracle on May 23, 2010 11:42 AM PDT up reply actions  

It's freaking alchemy

Hi Lisa. Hi Super Nintendo Chalmers.

by Reverend_Randy on May 23, 2010 4:39 PM PDT up reply actions  

Considering Maggette’s contract, it’s almost garbage for gold. Reggie Williams is a “special player” according to Nellie, but the Sixers don’t know that (plus, he may not be). Still, the 6th pick is nothing to sneeze at. One would be a fool to not take that trade. It’s a very good one for us. Not so good for the Sixers.

Go Andris's free throw shooting!

by Naticus2 on May 23, 2010 4:48 PM PDT up reply actions  

No way this trade happens

If you were the 76ers, would you rather have Turner/Maggette as your starting 2/3 than having Turner/Iguodala as your starting 2/3?

Love Warriors, Hate Cohan! - Sell the team! Save us Mr. Ellison!

by JustSomeName on May 23, 2010 12:51 PM PDT via mobile reply actions  

How good are the warriors?

The trouble with all this drafting and trading talk is that I’d argue we don’t really know what we have right now because of the injuries last season.
This is why I’d lean towards keeping who we have, letting them gel together, and then deciding if a trade is needed mid-season. I optimistically think we have playoff potential talent right now – especially if Curry and Monta make it work and AR, BW and AB are healthy.
In the mean time, we need to draft Aminu, Johnson or Aldrich. (aldrich a better pick than monroe).

by tjmax on May 24, 2010 8:59 AM PDT reply actions  

A team like Atlanta may covet it as they have a need for a natural Center

depending how is available (talking DeMarcus Cousins mainly).

How’s this for a dream 3 way trade;

Atlanta get #6 (Cousins), and Monta Ellis (covers loss of Joe Johnson)
Phili gets Crawford (expiring) and Randolph (young talent)
GSW gets Horford and Iguodala

2010 warriors- Curry, Iggy, Buike, Horford, Biedrins. mmmmm

(Highway robbery is fun)

by tafkasam on May 24, 2010 9:23 AM PDT reply actions  

as they have a need for a natural Center

What’s wrong with Horford…?

by Missing Barry on May 24, 2010 9:55 AM PDT up reply actions  

Hell no.

Just keep Cousins. If he falls to 6th, thank whoever your deity is and sleep well that night.

"I thought it was going in," Warriors center Chris Hunter said. "It looked like the invisible man tipped it away at the last second."

by kenntoe on May 24, 2010 10:17 PM PDT up reply actions  

One of Josh Smith/Horford need to go.

Neither are centers. Neither could do anything v. bigger teams in NBA. Horford had one big game v. Orlando (and it was game where Howard was in major foul trouble) otherwise in 3 other games he was 11 for 31 shooting averaging 9.3 ppg, 6.7 rpg in 32.8 mpg. It’s not a knock on Horford but considering he’s 6-10 in shoes without great length (8-11 standing reach) he’s always going to be uncomfortable and mismatched vs. the bigger centers.

It’s constantly discussed on atlanta blog, (They prefer to keep Horford and trade J-Smoov). It’s just like our backcourt. If you’re playing that for 30+ minutes a game v. bigger teams, you’ll never win.

They’ll never make that next step with that combo down low and while, I’d love to be in situation of ‘2nd rd playoff team’ they are probably starting to think. How can we improve to next level?

That being said… I’d still trade monta + 6 pick for josh smith and there pick.

by tafkasam on May 24, 2010 10:05 AM PDT reply actions  

I disagree completely on Smith/Horford not being able to play 4/5 together. Horford might be a tad undersized for a C, but it’s really not nearly as much as you’re making it out to be. He’s the same size as Noah, for instance (but much bulkier/stronger), and is only a tiny bit undersized in wingspan and standing reach by DE’s average measurements. Furthermore, between Smith’s athleticism, ability to play more of a slasher role, and ability to protect the rim, and Horford’s strength and ability to bang down low, play post D and O….I think they’re great complements for each other. The real problem is a lack of talent – they just aren’t anywhere near a Bynum/Pau combo or anything, the Hawks aren’t exactly loaded with talent outside…..

I just don’t see anything wrong with them from the perspective of how they play together. Horford is a real center, and he and Smith are good complements. The reason they can’t take the next step is talent.

by Missing Barry on May 24, 2010 10:48 AM PDT up reply actions  

The reason they can’t take the next step is talent.

Agreed. You realize how wide that talent gap is when consider how easily the Magic took them apart (one of the most lopsided second round series I’ve ever seen), and then witness what the Celtics are doing right now to the Magic…

And then to think of our poor Ws, who can only dream of being the Hawks…

There will be no extra point!

by Sleepy Freud on May 24, 2010 11:13 AM PDT up reply actions  

-1, for destroying my hope

go rowand

by lincypoo i wuv u on May 26, 2010 2:54 PM PDT up reply actions  

+1
Their bench is atrocious and pretty much the only productive player coming off of it is Crawford.

by Jaguarundi on May 24, 2010 12:13 PM PDT up reply actions  

You are wrong MB

Horford is that small. His standing reach is shorter than mopst PFs let alone centers. He’s giving up 4-5 inches in terms of type of his fingers and your average center. That’s a straight up fact. It’s clear you didn’t read my post when it said his standing reach is 8-11.

Look at his measurements: http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Al-Horford-415/

Pretty similar to another PF playing center Amare. Sure Horford is a much better defender and rebounder but he still cannot do it against the elite big’s.

Furthermore if you actually watch Horford, he rarely elevates of shoots from up high, making it easier.

If you need me to, I can pull up Horford’s number against all the elite bigger teams in the NBA. I mean Lakers, Orlando, Cavs, Celts to a degree. He does NOT produce because he is too undersized. He is a power forward. He was in college. Because he is skilled and athletic he can take avtange of many of the mediocre centers in the NBA.

So where does that leave Atlanta? About where they are. Second round playoff team. They want to advance, there best bet is moving one of two for a real center. And for Horford’s best interest, it’s to move somewhere he can play PF. He’s certainly skilled enough to, athletic enough to, and would have size advantage in most cases.

by tafkasam on May 24, 2010 2:24 PM PDT up reply actions  

His standing reach is shorter than mopst PFs let alone centers

Nope. He came in above average for a PF in standing reach. He’s giving up less than 3 inches in standing reach to an average C. Like I said, a little undersized, but not what you’re trying to make him out to be.

He does NOT produce because he is too undersized. He is a power forward. He was in college.

Or because he’s just not as talented as elite big men? I like Horford, I’d like him on the Warriors, but he’s just not that good. He doesn’t score very much. He’s an above average rebounder, but not that far above average. He’s a solid post defender, but doesn’t protect the rim and doesn’t have the quickness to be effective away from the rim. And like I said, he’s heavier and stronger than Noah, and has half an inch less in wingspan but half an inch more in standing reach. If you want to say he was the PF and Noah the C, fine, but just realize Horford’s the overall bigger of the two. I did read your comments, and did further research – and found your evaluation lacking. What I found supports my view that he’s a C.

So where does that leave Atlanta? About where they are. Second round playoff team. They want to advance, there best bet is moving one of two for a real center.

Agree, they’re left where they are right now. The difference I’m saying is that the problem isn’t Horford/Smith’s inability to play together, or their lack of a “real center” as you’ve defined it – it’s their lack of “talent”. Horford’s not much more productive than Biedrins, and Smith is hardly a superstar. They can move one of them, but if they don’t actually upgrade from a “talent” perspective, they still won’t be contenders.

by Missing Barry on May 24, 2010 2:52 PM PDT up reply actions  

Or because he’s just not as talented as elite big men? I like Horford, I’d like him on the Warriors, but he’s just not that good.

So now this is where I disagree. I think him on Warriors @ PF would be perfect. Him + Biedrins would make the Warriors on of best rebounding big tandems in NBA. Horford’s is one of best man to man defenders in the post under 25 (sure he’s not KG but then again, there is something to be said for experience).

He scored efficiently, and when given a weaker big he scores A LOT. And he can pass well. The idea makes me tingly. Besides, we don’t need a 20/10 post player. It’s nice but these team has no problems scoring.

People want Derrick Favors. IMO his upside is about where Horford is

by tafkasam on May 24, 2010 3:44 PM PDT up reply actions  

The idea of Curry + Buike + someone with Biedrins/Horford. That’s a team I can get around, who can legitimate challenge for the playoffs next year and has a core capable of winning a championship down the line.

by tafkasam on May 24, 2010 3:47 PM PDT up reply actions  

That depends greatly on who that “someone” is. LeBron James? Definitely capable of a title run. Wade would also be a solid “someone” to fill that gap to win a championship down the line. Point being, that “someone” needs to be the best player of the bunch, and by a fair margin.

heart of a champion, will of the warrior.

by cap'n hack on May 24, 2010 3:55 PM PDT up reply actions  

Not even. Give me a fundamentally sound good perimeter player

I’m not talking in 2010 or 2011. But you give me a core of 2 quality bigs under 25, who r efficient scorers and well above average rebounders. One is a good defender and improving (let’s remember KG and others in there early 20s) and another big who is an excellent weakside shotblocker.

Then put a 22 year old point guard who can score 30 any night, who has all the makings of an all star caliber player, possibly elite level. I like the chances.

Look at Phoenix suns. As much as i like Amare and Lopez. I’m pretty confident in saying switching Amare with a less offensive (but just as efficient), much better rebounding/defensive PF and switching Lopez with biedrins at his max (08-09 beans) they would be a better team. It’s not like they have a problem putting points up without Amare

by tafkasam on May 24, 2010 4:07 PM PDT up reply actions  

Amare is ridiculously efficient, so replacing him with someone who replicates that while being an even better at rebounding and defense is a pretty big improvement. Al Horford is a very efficient scorer, and he doesn’t meet that first requirement.

And of course, there’s the little issue of that analogy requiring Curry to be as good as two time MVP Steve freakin’ Nash to apply to the Warriors. Please spare me the comparison, Nash is too good.

I agree that the team you’ve got is a good one. I’m just not seeing “title contender” anywhere with it.

heart of a champion, will of the warrior.

by cap'n hack on May 24, 2010 4:20 PM PDT up reply actions  

When you say a core of bigs under 25, does that imply you expect them to improve further? I think Biedrins is what he is, and Horford will probably improve a bit but I wouldn’t count on it being that substantial. Being the age they are mostly means they’ll maintain their production for a while, but I don’t necessarily think they’ll get that much better.

by Missing Barry on May 24, 2010 5:36 PM PDT up reply actions  

Depends how good you expect Curry to be.

I completely agree that we will need a significant upgrade somewhere to really get in the mix in the west, but if you were going to commit to “building around” Curry it’s not a bad line-up. You give him some outside shooters on the wing, some very good rebounding big men who can catch and convert inside, and you tell him to go make it happen. It’s not the approach I would take if I were running the team (I’m not as high on Curry as most here) but it wouldn’t be a bad strategy if you really believed he could be the leader of a winning team.

Golden State Warriors '10-'11 Season: The Return of ^^^^

by olympicmike on May 24, 2010 4:07 PM PDT up reply actions  

I look at Curry as the #2 guy on a contender. The team listed still lacks a real alpha dog. Where’s the truly elite player on that roster? A lineup with one guy who might be really good, and a couple of guys who I’d call “quite good” still lacks anyone who’s great. Great players win titles. Good players don’t. That team could be a mid-range playoff team (4 to 7 seed) who isn’t a real threat to win it all.

heart of a champion, will of the warrior.

by cap'n hack on May 24, 2010 4:12 PM PDT up reply actions  

Probably not the WORST idea

That being said. The way I see it. We won’t get a player better than Horford @ #6. Which is where the debate it starts.

by tafkasam on May 24, 2010 4:14 PM PDT up reply actions  

Yeah, I’d do that trade in a heartbeat. I don’t think Atlanta does, but the trade itself is a good one for us. No argument there.

heart of a champion, will of the warrior.

by cap'n hack on May 24, 2010 4:21 PM PDT up reply actions  

We won’t get a player better than Horford @ #6

I disagree. We easily could.

Monroe, Johnson, Aminu aren’t complete players. Hell, two of those guys are majority-upside picks.
Johnson and Aminu are going to contribute immediately in some ways, but they really aren’t the complete stars they can be. And if Monroe polishes his game, he can be one of the most skilled bigs in the league.

by LarryLegendofOracle on May 24, 2010 4:55 PM PDT up reply actions  

Yeah, they can all develop, but there’s a reason they aren’t among the top prospects – it’s not necessarily the likely case. Between the 3 of them (and it seems to me Johnson is in the top 5 at the moment), maybe one might be as good or better than Horford? Will we get that one? Do we know who we think it will be?

by Missing Barry on May 24, 2010 5:38 PM PDT up reply actions  

Johnson and Aminu are going to contribute immediately in some ways, but they really aren’t the complete stars they can be.

And horford couldn’t? Horford-Biedrins. Only lakers could boast better duo at top form

by tafkasam on May 24, 2010 8:45 PM PDT up reply actions  

f we're saying top form...

I’d include a healthy Oden-LMA.

Not as the best, but up there with them.

"I thought it was going in," Warriors center Chris Hunter said. "It looked like the invisible man tipped it away at the last second."

by kenntoe on May 24, 2010 10:26 PM PDT up reply actions  

Don’t forget about Camby and Przybilla. Probably 2nd best front line in the NBA when healthy.

by Jaguarundi on May 25, 2010 10:48 AM PDT up reply actions  

hmm

Best- Lakers

I’d rather have Orlando, Boston and Cleveland’s front line. Possibly Orlando. Maybe Memphis, healthy Houston for sure, I’m just not so impressed with Portland.

by tafkasam on May 25, 2010 1:25 PM PDT up reply actions  

I’d take Orlando’s big over most teams’ bigs

go rowand

by lincypoo i wuv u on May 26, 2010 2:57 PM PDT up reply actions  

I’d take LA over most of our bigs. He seems pretty sound on both ends of the floor.

by LarryLegendofOracle on May 25, 2010 11:14 AM PDT up reply actions  

I’ve always been underwhelmed by Aldridge defensively. I’d take any of our guys over him on defense – for all the complaints about how our current bigs get pushed around/are soft/skinny, etc…..well, that fits Aldridge pretty well, too. At least all of our bigs can protect the rim and play some decent help D.

Aldridge doesn’t rebound well. He’s an ok passer but not a particularly effective scorer….I’d take Biedrins, Wright and Randolph over him for sure.

by Missing Barry on May 25, 2010 1:08 PM PDT up reply actions  

Yea, at this point I'd take AR/Wright over LMA.

I’m not sure about AB.

But as a sum of it’s parts, I think LMA and Oden fit quite nicely. Oden is the muscle and enforcer, while LMA is more finesse. They still need more time on the court to find their grove.

But all of this is highly highly dependent on Oden’s health, specifically his knees. Oden on defense, should help soften the blow of the nothingness LMA gives you there. And likewise but not as drastic on offense with Oden progressing and LMA as the primary option.

"I thought it was going in," Warriors center Chris Hunter said. "It looked like the invisible man tipped it away at the last second."

by kenntoe on May 25, 2010 2:43 PM PDT up reply actions  

What about Aldridge do you see as better than Biedrins?

by Missing Barry on May 25, 2010 2:51 PM PDT up reply actions  

Really?

AB is probably the only guy I would take over LMA with confidence. He rebounds better, protects the rim better, scores way more efficiently…

Hi Lisa. Hi Super Nintendo Chalmers.

by Reverend_Randy on May 25, 2010 4:10 PM PDT up reply actions  

We won’t get a player better than Horford @ #6.

I wouldn’t go as far as to say we won’t, but I do think it’s pretty unlikely we get someone better than Horford.

by Missing Barry on May 24, 2010 5:37 PM PDT up reply actions   1 recs

Great players win titles. Good players don’t. That team could be a mid-range playoff team (4 to 7 seed) who isn’t a real threat to win it all.

Yep, I agree completely.

Golden State Warriors '10-'11 Season: The Return of ^^^^

by olympicmike on May 24, 2010 5:03 PM PDT up reply actions  

If we could have won the lottery and gotten Cuz, Wall, or Turner, we could have had that star….

Stephen Curry is the future.
We need to save this planet. Go Green, recycle, ride public transportation, use cantines. Anything you can do!

by GovernorStephCurry on May 24, 2010 7:36 PM PDT up reply actions  

I look at Curry as the #2 guy on a contender. The team listed still lacks a real alpha dog.

Curry’s a rookie and has been playing at this level for half-a-season. You saw how good Curry was as the ‘#2 guy’. He’s much better as the team leader, but I agree that we need an alpha dog in the post.

by LarryLegendofOracle on May 24, 2010 5:11 PM PDT up reply actions  

Are you saying you think he could eventually be the best player on a contender? That seems like a stretch to me.

heart of a champion, will of the warrior.

by cap'n hack on May 24, 2010 6:56 PM PDT up reply actions  

Depends on your definition of leader...

Offensive leader. Absolutely. I see no reason why not.

If we expect Curry to be Michael Jordan, well then we’re asking too much. But I see no reason he can’t be over 20ppg efficient player who dishes out a good amount of assists.

Like you said, get some perimeter defenders who can slash or hit open shots. And bigs who rebound and do the job. I like that team.

by tafkasam on May 24, 2010 4:12 PM PDT up reply actions  

Just for some perspective, Nash has never even averaged 19 ppg. Chris Paul has broken the 20 mark by a bit a couple of times while dishing out huge assist numbers, but he’s also on pace to be one of the 3 or so greatest PG’s of all time. Deron Williams has never cracked 20 ppg. Mark Price never did it. John Stockton never did it. Maybe it matters how many assists you mean by “a good amount”, because these guys were some of the best offensive PG’s of the last 20 years, and their assist numbers were huge (8+ per game)…so I guess I’m just saying we shouldn’t get too far ahead of ourselves. 18 points 8 assists on efficient scoring while limiting turnovers would make Curry a pretty elite offensive PG.

by Missing Barry on May 24, 2010 5:43 PM PDT up reply actions   1 recs

In a sense I agree with your sentiment

I just don’t think Curry will be a 10 assist per game point guard. That being said, he could easily be above a 25 point per game guy efficiently. The way he shoots the ball from every area, and how smart he plays are very underrated.

In the end of the day, i think Curry is a guy who would thrive in a ball movement system where you aren’t looking for a pure PG to set EVERYTHING up. Something like Triangle offense. So clearly a compliment point forward wing player who can initiate offense without turning it over a lot would relieve pressure. It’s a large reason I want Iguodala (wanted Turner) so badly. Iguodala is a proven 5 assist to 2.5 turnover per 36 mins player. Add to fact he rebounds well and is a borderline elite defender…

but in terms of shouldering a load offensively. I have no doubt Curry can be that guy. The key is looking for other cogs to surround him. He’ll never be an above average defender, so team needs good defenders. Obviously team needs rebounding and post play. Since I really never think he’ll be a pure point guard, having another initiator who doesn’t ruin the defensive balance (a la Monta)

I mean let’s be fair… in second half of year, Curry averaged 22.8 ppg, 7.7 apg with 3.7 to’s with a ridiculous .575 TS%

Curry can easily be a big time scorer and playmaker in the league, but i don’t think he’ll ever be the playmaker nash or CP3 are on a night in, night out basis.

I have a pretty clear vision of how I’d build a team around Curry to maximize him. I hope that post clears it up.

by tafkasam on May 24, 2010 8:59 PM PDT up reply actions  

I also think Biedrins and Horford would be a very nice combo together. How’s Horford’s jumpshot?

by Missing Barry on May 24, 2010 5:34 PM PDT up reply actions  

He's pretty good at long twos

like 18 feet out. Takes a couple a game.

Hi Lisa. Hi Super Nintendo Chalmers.

by Reverend_Randy on May 24, 2010 5:47 PM PDT up reply actions  

I polled the 76ers fanbase at their SBNation blog. I’ll update with their replies if there is discussion.

by Jaguarundi on May 24, 2010 12:07 PM PDT reply actions  

I don’t think anyone would take a big contract, a d-leaguer and a 6th pick in an arguably 5 player draft for one of the best all-around SF’s in the league.

by LarryLegendofOracle on May 24, 2010 4:17 PM PDT up reply actions  

B Wright instead of Williams? Not sure I’d give up anyone on the front line.

by Jaguarundi on May 25, 2010 10:26 PM PDT up reply actions  

Trade The Pick

Looking at who will be there at 6, there is no one great. I think we need size. If we are going to gamble let’s go big. No small foward, we have too many of them. Let’s see if we can get Greg Oden. I know..,injury history…bust? I think he is young enough and with a new regime could team up with a combination of Beidrins, Wright,Randolph and Turiaf to be a pretty dynamic front line with shooters Morrow, Ellis, Williams and Curry. Notice I didn’t mention Maggette. We can trade him for some additional depth.

by Ultimate Warrior on May 24, 2010 8:25 PM PDT reply actions  

What SF’s do we really have? Yeah, we have a lot of interchangeable wings, but in general none of them play D and they’re all on the smaller side.

As for Oden…..that’s a dream. Bust is not the correct label for him – when he plays, he’s a force. No way the Blazers give up on him now. I hope he stays healthy, if he can, he’s going to be a star.

by Missing Barry on May 24, 2010 8:31 PM PDT up reply actions  

Oden is the 2nd most dominant big in this league when healthy.

Stephen Curry is the future.
We need to save this planet. Go Green, recycle, ride public transportation, use cantines. Anything you can do!

by GovernorStephCurry on May 24, 2010 10:12 PM PDT up reply actions  

Small Fowards

As long as Nellie is coaching this team is loaded with smalls. Morrow, Tolliver, Azubuike, Randolph, Maggette, Reggie Williams and George. In Nellie’s system he plays these guys interchangeably, that is why none develop into their natural positions but morph into master of none types. Don’t forget the others we dumped during the year, Harrington and Jackson. That’s the problem, then compund the problem by making things worse by signing Maggette. That is why we are in the mess we are in.

by Ultimate Warrior on May 24, 2010 11:45 PM PDT up reply actions  

Buike, Morrow, Maggette and Williams are all SG/SFs

Tolliver, Randolph are PFs.
George isn’t on the team anymore.

Hi Lisa. Hi Super Nintendo Chalmers.

by Reverend_Randy on May 25, 2010 12:19 AM PDT up reply actions  

And Buike, Morrow and Williams are all on the smaller end of the wing spectrum….

by Missing Barry on May 25, 2010 7:25 AM PDT up reply actions  

Yeah

Williams isn’t even 6’5"

Hi Lisa. Hi Super Nintendo Chalmers.

by Reverend_Randy on May 25, 2010 4:10 PM PDT up reply actions  

My point exactly!

Rev you make my point exactly, Nellie has used these players interchangably. the players roles change based on when Nellie plays small ball. When AR plays point foward, that is a amall foward. officially it may read PF on the stat sheets but how he is used? Same for Tolliver and forgot to mention Rado. these guys are staying outside, shooting threes, that spells sf to me. PFs should be down low, rebounding, posting up not taking 18 foot jumpshots.

by Ultimate Warrior on May 29, 2010 8:27 AM PDT up reply actions  

No small foward, we have too many of them.

haha, We have lots of guys who try to play SF but none really good at it to be a lock on the position. If no one else is left by pick 6 Aminu might be a smart choice Probably better than Monroe? I can see Aminu being a starting 3 but not Monroe being a starting 5 ? Whitesides might ultimately be a better center if we want to draft big?

Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.

by Skeptic con Urquell on May 24, 2010 9:06 PM PDT reply actions  

Aminu at 6 seems pretty logical.

Most tend to agree that he’s talented enough to go 5-6. He’s coachable, athletic, and a great offensive rebounder. If his defense proves to be legit, I wouldn’t hesitate to take him. We need a versatile defender on the wing almost as much as we need a low post big that commands a double team.

"I thought it was going in," Warriors center Chris Hunter said. "It looked like the invisible man tipped it away at the last second."

by kenntoe on May 24, 2010 10:34 PM PDT up reply actions  

Yes let's take on Iguodala's salary for 3 years

for a versatile athletic rebounding defensive SF, via a trade including the 6th pick. Or, we could just pick…………..a versatile athletic rebounding defensive SF. Now, if only such a player was available……

Dump Maggette get a pick go shopping in 2011= NBA Champions 2013

by polar on May 25, 2010 12:58 PM PDT reply actions  

You really think there’s going to be a player of Iguodala’s caliber available to us in the draft…?

by Missing Barry on May 25, 2010 1:08 PM PDT up reply actions  

It's not only that he's good

It’s that he excels in everything this team lacks! Mainly man defense and passing (and rebounding). I could care less if he averages more than 15 ppg if he came here. Scoring would not be anything we’d need him for

by tafkasam on May 25, 2010 2:15 PM PDT up reply actions  

Ellis is an established 18+ point 4+ assist 4+ reb guard

at this point. Any playoff or contention- minded team with passing at other positions would pay $11 million for that player at age 24. It is quite pessimistic to say that our 2 spot cannot be capably filled by Morrow, Azubuike, Williams, OR Maggette. We need post scoring and size inside. Ellis + salary matching additional players= that guy.

Dump Maggette get a pick go shopping in 2011= NBA Champions 2013

by polar on May 25, 2010 1:08 PM PDT reply actions  

Yo check Iguodala's stats his first two seasons.

When he came out of Arizona he was basically considered an athlete. He developed by his third year, and by his 4th year was considered worth paying. Besides, I’ve seen 6-17 nights from him a little too often.

Dump Maggette get a pick go shopping in 2011= NBA Champions 2013

by polar on May 25, 2010 1:13 PM PDT reply actions  

So maybe not this year and possibly not next year but is there enough urgency to warrant an extra $10 million a year in the meanwhile on the wing?

Dump Maggette get a pick go shopping in 2011= NBA Champions 2013

by polar on May 25, 2010 1:16 PM PDT reply actions  

We need that money worth inside

Iguodala is not a good idea for the Warriors

Dump Maggette get a pick go shopping in 2011= NBA Champions 2013

by polar on May 25, 2010 1:22 PM PDT reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

"UNSTOPPABLE BABY!"

Golden State Warriors rookie Marc Jackson to the Mavericks' bench, after hitting a lay-up during a 29-point loss (2000)


GSoM Crew -------------------------

Atma-160_small Atma Brother ONE

Gw090_small Fantasy Junkie

Natehead_small Nate Parham

--------------------------------------------------------

Small Hash

Small dj fuzzylogic

600px-olympic_rings_square olympicmike

Small IQofaWarrior

Shutterstock_10276351_basketball_mind_small Evanz

--------------------------------------------------------

We_still_believe_small R Dizzle

Small Adam Lauridsen

Small jae

Gsom_tony_small Tony.psd

Kanji_love_small Sleepy Freud

Japan_by_miaumi_small YaoButtaMing

Drmlg_logo-gmail_small Poor Man's Commish

Nellie2_small Feltbot