Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Jeremy Lin And How The Pac-12 Missed Him

Glad the Warriors Don't have $$$ to Spend on Free Agents?

Some people were lamenting the fact that the Warriors don't have enough cap space in one of the greatest free agent classes of all time. LeBron, Wade, Bosh, Amare, Dirk, etc. We could have had a chance to sign those guys!

After Day 1 of the free agency period, I'm glad the Warriors don't have money to spend. The big names wouldn't be coming here, so we'd be stuck with the sloppy seconds. I just don't trust the current Warriors' front office to make a smart free agency deal. They'd blow all their cash on worse contracts than they already have. Look at the list below:

Rudy Gay: 5 years, $80 million
John Salmons: 5 years, $39 million
Amir Johnson: 5 years, $34 million
Drew Gooden: 5 years, $32 million
Channing Frye: 5 years, $30 millon
Darko Milicic: 4 years, $20 million

These make Ellis and Biedrins look like bargain basement deals. Gay gets paid nearly 50% more per year than Ellis?

With owners throwing around money at ridiculous rates and for ridiculous contract lengths, this offseason just got off to a mind-boggling start. How is Amir Johnson worth $34 million? Who gives Darko a 4 year contract? Rudy Gay is a max player?

There's too much cap space and not enough quality players to fill them. These contracts are only going to get worse.

Poll
If you had to take one of these contracts onto your team, which would you take?
Rudy Gay: 5 years, $80 million
765 votes
John Salmons: 5 years, $39 million
681 votes
Amir Johnson: 5 years, $34 million
97 votes
Drew Gooden: 5 years, $32 million
336 votes
Channing Frye: 5 years, $30 million
795 votes
Darko Milicic: 4 years, $20 million
312 votes

2986 votes | Poll has closed

Comment 153 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

I had to go with John Salmons since he’s the only somewhat reasonable contract and he does fill a need for us. It’s just crazy what these teams are doing right now.

The Ultimate Opportunist

by Rated-R Superstar on Jul 2, 2010 9:30 AM PDT reply actions  

So the Ws need a SG?

No.

Confront racism: Boycott Arizona

by The Bimbo Coles Experience on Jul 2, 2010 6:23 PM PDT up reply actions  

I agree… an experienced 2 that is big enough to D up would be helpful. Azubuike probably won’t be healthy enough to do that for us and Morrow is probably gone to free agency.

Go Andris's free throw shooting!

by Naticus2 on Jul 2, 2010 7:07 PM PDT up reply actions  

How is Amir Johnson worth $34 million?

In fairness, if Joe Johnson is worth 6/$120M for his age 29-34 years, Amir Johnson is easily worth 5/$34M for his age 23-27 years.

In fact, if declining JJ is worth 6/$120M, young Amir is probably worth more like 5/$150M.

Basically, if JJ is worth 6/$120M, any and all things are possible. World peace, dogs and cats living together, dates with Jessica Alba, Warriors win it all, etc…

Alas, JJ is not worth 6/$120M. :,-(

There will be no extra point!

by Sleepy Freud on Jul 2, 2010 9:38 AM PDT reply actions   2 recs

Yup

Once JJ signs that deal, he can go on the list of bad contracts. He’s not a max player. Not sure why he’s been grouped with LeBron and Wade in the free agent talks.

Golden State of Mind: Unstoppable Baby!

by Fantasy Junkie on Jul 2, 2010 9:48 AM PDT up reply actions  

What's more absurd?

Rashard Lewis’ contract OR Joe Johnson? Something tells me Rashard Lewis.

by dj fuzzylogic on Jul 2, 2010 6:53 PM PDT up reply actions  

Can I take Rashard Lewis based on it being a shorter deal and he’s closer to being an expiring contract?

Golden State of Mind: Unstoppable Baby!

by Fantasy Junkie on Jul 2, 2010 9:50 PM PDT up reply actions  

That contract is crazy!!

The Joe Johnson contract keeps reminding me of our Stephen Jackson contract. They are obviously very different but that contract is so ridiculous and unecessary. Its a desperate move, not a good move. Good luck trying to trade him in a few years.

by WestCoastWarrior on Jul 2, 2010 9:56 AM PDT up reply actions  

Amir Johnson looks like an overpay at first glance

but I think that is the most reasonable contract up there. A 23 year old power forward who rebounds well, scores efficiently, defends the post well and protects the rim. If he can keep his fouls under control, he might be a steal.

Johnson and Gay? Those are outrageous contracts. Say hi to the guys teams are looking to acquire in 5 years to clear cap space for Kevin Durant or Derick Rose…

Monta Ellis's #1 Fan!!!

by philthiest on Jul 2, 2010 11:31 AM PDT up reply actions  

Amir Johnson

Sounds like you just described Ekpe Udoh.

by breaker on Jul 2, 2010 1:21 PM PDT up reply actions  

Except...

Amir’s much more efficient offensively.

Oh, and he’s been playing against NBA players for the past 5 years.

Monta Ellis's #1 Fan!!!

by philthiest on Jul 2, 2010 1:57 PM PDT up reply actions  

Warriors were interested

Supposedly the Ws went after him, perhaps the raps panicked (kinda like the Ws with Maggs)

by mosdl on Jul 2, 2010 1:40 PM PDT up reply actions  

Joe Johnson is Stephen Jackson with more hype and shot attempts.

Kobe sucks
"Frankly your desire to be a seller is just proof of how blinded you are by your hatred of Sabean"-giantsrainman..LOL

by GovernorStephCurry on Jul 2, 2010 5:46 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions  

Why did we dump so much of our talent though

if after getting rid of Al Harrington, Jackson, Belinelli, Crawford, and Maggette, we still cant afford to go after a decent FA?

by WestCoastWarrior on Jul 2, 2010 9:59 AM PDT reply actions  

we still cant afford to go after a decent FA?

hang around a bit longer, it’ll start making sense – nonsense … we’ve been told for years on end that we were gaining “cap flexibility” with most deals but never are able to maximize any return in actual talent for the roster (depending on who you ask, Harrington either suddenly demanded a trade or had been asking out of town for months on end, Jackson was a horrible extension any way it’s sliced and diced, Belinelli wasn’t great guns either before or after being dealt for loose parts, Crawford was the other side of the Harrington deal and has gone on to better things since departing, and Maggette was either the best FA available at the time or the worst signing in franchise history depending on which poster is spewing forth). Anyway, welcome to the nuthouse!

by hardcore on Jul 2, 2010 10:11 AM PDT up reply actions  

We have shorter contracts. The next few years will open doors to trades, theoretically or will allow us to let them expire and have some cash. That’d be nice.

Go Andris's free throw shooting!

by Naticus2 on Jul 2, 2010 7:10 PM PDT up reply actions  

This is going to be a free agent year where we win by not playing.

Remember, the cap is almost certainly going to come down, and it’s going to get harder. These teams are hamstringing themselves going forward.

The Warriors, by sitting out this year, may find themselves as one of the few teams with any cap room to speak of in 2-3 years – we may have the free agent field to ourselves (and there may even be less of a bird exemption!). We should be able to get good value.

Remember the Magette signing: paying too much for someone who’s not a difference maker is a huge mistake.

by Ronaldinho on Jul 2, 2010 10:07 AM PDT reply actions  

Thx for the common sense Ronaldinho!

Plus we have new ownership/management coming that we have to trust will make smart moves with the cap rm at that time. This is good timing actually. At this point in time we are not in position for an instant turn around anyway. The worst thing that Riley could do is hamstring the new ownership with bad future contracts. At the same time the smart move isnt to totally clear the decks of the young core group this summer. If Beans starts to return to his previous path he will start to look like a bargain compared to whats happening this summer. So far I like Rileys moves and never had the illusion that major moves will be made now…..let the others bid up the bad contracts….get our new owner…..get the team healthy……evaluate after a healthy year….make our moves with the right timing.

by Only In Fairfax on Jul 2, 2010 10:45 AM PDT up reply actions  

If we can resign Wright and Randolph, Monta has a good year and Biedrins has a good year, we’ll be in good position to have a package deal for a top-tier player (provided neither Wright nor Randolph become such).

Go Andris's free throw shooting!

by Naticus2 on Jul 2, 2010 7:12 PM PDT up reply actions  

Well said. Rec’d.

Hopefully, when we do have cap room, we won’t overpay for players. Please be good, new management.

"I never watched baseball on TV. It's slow and boring. I'm not a fan. Never was." - Jeff Kent
FREE POSEY IS FREE

by Yoyo on Jul 2, 2010 12:26 PM PDT up reply actions  

Negotiation?

whatever happened to the art of negotiation? it seems like (especially with this Joe Johnson deal) that teams aren’t even trying to wait to see what someone else would value the player at, and instead throwing enough money at them to not even look in another direction. I understand that, but it’s not smart negotiating, front offices in the NBA need to be more educated, either that or we are not seeing the whole picture, because to offer that kind of money off the bat is straight up mind boggling to me.

by Essential on Jul 2, 2010 10:07 AM PDT reply actions  

The Joe Johnson deal is insane!

They an offer him more than anyone else … but why would they start with that sort of offer?

Especially for a player who’s just not that good.

But why not make a more modest offer first. If he gets a better deal, you can top it. If he doesn’t, you can bump it up a little to make it seem like you’re doing right by him …

I wonder how Hawks fans feel about that deal.

by Ronaldinho on Jul 2, 2010 11:45 AM PDT up reply actions  

The Rudy Gay deal is even more insane

They could have MATCHED ANY OFFER and it was impossible to pay more money than they are now. You’d think they would have learned from what the Hawks did with Josh Smith (Memphis made the offer sheet there), but no.

Only benefit they gained was the avoidance of a poison pill, but the overall value could not have even been level with what Memphis gave him.

by dprodigy19 on Jul 2, 2010 1:11 PM PDT up reply actions  

Drew Gooden

He’s the only player in the NBA that said he wants to come to Golden State. Big words, since not even Golden State players want to play for Golden State. Though – I wouldn’t have offered him $34 million.

by ikai on Jul 2, 2010 10:23 AM PDT reply actions  

Yes and No

Scared the Dubs could have made a similarly bad deal, but it’s always fun to be players…

by Lew Ghost on Jul 2, 2010 10:24 AM PDT reply actions  

It’s not too late for the Warriors to make a foolish, Brian Cardinal-esque MLE offer to an undeserving free agent. Cross your fingers.

Thing C

by markdash on Jul 2, 2010 10:34 AM PDT reply actions  

With that group? easily John Salmons is the guy I'd want

he’ll probably be the only one who approaches his value

by eastbayglory on Jul 2, 2010 10:42 AM PDT reply actions  

Jason Richardson

can come to the Warriors with his expiring contract. As contructed and with Hakim Warrick instead of Amare, the Suns will blow, and they need talent. Let’s give them some crap and they give us JRich back! He can be a that veteran, ghetto small-forward we need. An SF any taller than 6’ 6" gives Nellie jitters.

by biggiep on Jul 2, 2010 11:18 AM PDT reply actions  

Everyone besides Salmons and Gay became untradable as soon as they signed

I have no idea why anyone would vote for Frye. That dude is as one dimentional as it gets. During the players he was 1 for 21 at one point during the Laker series.

by Bob on Jul 2, 2010 11:35 AM PDT reply actions  

People have been calling Drew Gooden untradable for years

But he keeps proving them wrong…

Monta Ellis's #1 Fan!!!

by philthiest on Jul 2, 2010 11:38 AM PDT up reply actions  

This is the first time he'll be locked up on an albatross contract

Gooden will be in Milwaukee till he’s an expiring deal.

by Bob on Jul 3, 2010 1:36 PM PDT up reply actions  

I voted for Darko just because it was the smallest amount of money/years.

Not because I expect him to contribute to anything. But I think a team can carry a $5m/yr guy who doesn’t contribute anything and get away with it. And I’m not convinced that Darko can’t give you Turiaf-level production (caveat: I think Turiaf is a player who shouldn’t be seeing more than 10min/game unless you have injury problems).

by Ronaldinho on Jul 2, 2010 11:48 AM PDT up reply actions  

1)Darko is a decent back-up C. I voted for him as well.
2) Aside from the fact that Turiaf is a PF playing C, why so few minutes? He defends, passes in the post well, and isn’t that bad of a rebounder if coupled with the right front court player.

Confront racism: Boycott Arizona

by The Bimbo Coles Experience on Jul 2, 2010 6:28 PM PDT up reply actions  

I think he’s a center. He’s big enough to defend centers and is the type of shot blocker you want in the middle. Also, he is a bad rebounder. If that were not the case, he’d be an excellent center .

Go Andris's free throw shooting!

by Naticus2 on Jul 2, 2010 7:16 PM PDT up reply actions  

If he were a good rebounder, he would be a good center.

He still has to improve his foul rate, and scoring ability.

Kobe sucks
"Frankly your desire to be a seller is just proof of how blinded you are by your hatred of Sabean"-giantsrainman..LOL

by GovernorStephCurry on Jul 2, 2010 7:20 PM PDT up reply actions  

He’s 6’10". That’s big enough to defend Yao Ming, Dwight Howard, Tim Duncan, Shaq, Ilgauskas, Tyson Chandler, etc., etc, etc.? He played the 4 in LA. I think he would play there on most teams. He’s clearly undersized as a center.

Confront racism: Boycott Arizona

by The Bimbo Coles Experience on Jul 3, 2010 1:42 PM PDT up reply actions  

" isn’t that bad of a rebounder if coupled with the right front court player."

This is just wrong, and is a big part of my problem with Turiaf.

He is a bad rebounder.

The fact that you notice how bad a rebounder he is less if you pair him next to great rebounder like Beidrins or Randolph doesn’t excuse it.

To deserve meaningful playing time, a player has to do something above average. Turiaf is a below average scorer, a much below average rebounder, nothing special as a defender, and the one thing he does at a very good level (passing) is the least important skill for a big man to have. That adds up to a player who is substantially below average.

Good teams don’t run players who are that limited out there for very many minutes unless they’ve got an injury situation or the main players are in foul trouble.

by Ronaldinho on Jul 3, 2010 8:51 AM PDT up reply actions   1 recs

He’s close to being the best shot blocker int he league and is a strong one on one defender. Dude, so not a true Warriors fan, if you don’t love Turiaf for that stuff.

Go Andris's free throw shooting!

by Naticus2 on Jul 3, 2010 10:30 AM PDT up reply actions  

Close to being the best shot blocker in the league?

He’s NOT EVEN CLOSE. What are you smoking?

His blocks/48 is about 2.9. That means, if he had enough blocks to qualify, he wouldn’t have been 14th in the league.

He’s had one year where he was an elite shot-blocker, two years where he was very very good, and last year where he was good, but not great.

Your sense of his one-on-one defense is similarly off. He’s an adequate defender. It’s possible he’d be better on a team which put more team effort into defending, and he doesn’t get bowled over. But he’s not a stopper. He’s not somebody other teams worry about.

by Ronaldinho on Jul 3, 2010 4:27 PM PDT up reply actions  

He was third in the league at one point. Third isn’t close? He was injured last year. Remember? I think his one-on-one defense is solid. He’s had some great games against elite players. People fear the beard.

Again, if you don’t love his shot blocking and defense (aside from his weak rebounding), you’re not a true Warriors fan.

Go Andris's free throw shooting!

by Naticus2 on Jul 4, 2010 3:56 PM PDT up reply actions  

you’re not a true Warriors fan.

The “you’re not a true Warrior fan” or other forms of insulting someone’s feelings towards the team because they do not agree with you take is exceptionally low class.

by jae on Jul 4, 2010 7:59 PM PDT up reply actions  

LOL I was half kidding. Also, I don’t think that’s particularly insulting. You might be insulted by something like that, but to me, it’s kind of funny.

Go Andris's free throw shooting!

by Naticus2 on Jul 5, 2010 12:06 AM PDT up reply actions  

He was third in the league at one point. Third isn’t close?

Sure. As I said, he was an elite shot-blocker one year. But it is not reasonable to credit a player for being able to do his career best at a position when he’s shown over several healthy seasons that he couldn’t do it.

In five seasons, Turiaf’s 3.6 blk/36 is a clear outlier. His next-best season is only 75% as good.

One-on-one defense? He’s not terrible. He puts good effort into it. I won’t argue with you if you call it “solid” (which is somewhat weaker than “strong” in my book) and wouldn’t have argued with you if you had started with that word.

He’s had some great games against elite players.

He’s also had some mediocre ones – do they not count? This is the same logic people use to call Monta a good defender (“he was great against Roy that one game!”). The truly strong defenders bring it consistently, and you don’t have to squint to pick out a few games to make the point.

Again, if you don’t love his shot blocking and defense (aside from his weak rebounding), you’re not a true Warriors fan.

This is just stupid. I should love his skills – even if they’re not that special – because he’s a Warrior?

Call me crazy, but I’d rather “love” Warriors who were actually above-average players.

by Ronaldinho on Jul 4, 2010 11:06 PM PDT up reply actions  

Mediocre games against elite players are better than half the league can do. I’ve never seen him play horrible defense, and I’ve seen him play excellent defense. All in all, he’s a good defending big man (minus his poor rebounding), and those are hard to come by.

His one season as the 3rd best shot blocker in the league reflects what he’s capable of when healthy. I’ve already said that if he plays healthy, he’s one of the best. I think that’s true.

I don’t know that you should love his skills, just because he’s a Warrior. But I think you should love his obvious determination to protect the basket, because that effects the whole team. We need guys like that, instead of selfish guys like Monta.

Go Andris's free throw shooting!

by Naticus2 on Jul 5, 2010 12:10 AM PDT up reply actions  

His one season as the 3rd best shot blocker in the league reflects what he’s capable of when healthy.

But he was healthy in the two seasons prior to that, as well, and never got close to that performance.

by Ronaldinho on Jul 5, 2010 8:51 AM PDT up reply actions  

That performance, if he had played enough minutes, would have produced one of the great shot blocking years in NBA history. His career average is 2.4 blocks per 36 (I did the math myself, so if I made a mistake, you can let me know). I went and did some more math. For the past 5 years, the league leaders in blocks were at, on average, 2.5 blocks per 36. Now considering that one freak year, where he was the uber shot-blocking beast, and considering he played injured last year, the guy is one of the best shot blockers in the league when healthy.

That said, it’s a shame he can’t rebound. Great guy and teammates. Still, nice to have him rebound more.

Go Andris's free throw shooting!

by Naticus2 on Jul 6, 2010 12:02 AM PDT up reply actions  

You forget what team he plays on. On most any good team, Turiaf plays very limited minutes. On the Ws, he is a 20+ minute man.

Confront racism: Boycott Arizona

by The Bimbo Coles Experience on Jul 3, 2010 1:44 PM PDT up reply actions  

Well, that's my whole point.

If Turiaf is playing more than 10mpg, you’re in trouble.

The Warriors are definitely in trouble.

by Ronaldinho on Jul 3, 2010 4:28 PM PDT up reply actions  

I think he’d play for a lot of teams, actually, provided he could stay healthy (really, he probably can’t).

Go Andris's free throw shooting!

by Naticus2 on Jul 4, 2010 3:57 PM PDT up reply actions  

I don't.

Most teams run three big men out for the majority of the big-man minutes, and have a fourth guy who fills in here and there.

Turiaf is, to my mind, the definition of that 4th big man. I think he could fill that role for a lot of teams, sure.

I’m not calling him and end-of-the-bench player, the kind of guy who should never get into games. Clearly he’s better than that.

by Ronaldinho on Jul 4, 2010 11:10 PM PDT up reply actions  

I think he’d start for a few teams, personally. Nellie called him the “best backup center in the league,” which wasn’t really true (Gortat was). But a lot of teams would love to have him. That stretch where he was starting for us, he was very solid. I loved his defense and tenacity. We were winning more with him as a starter, actually. I believe we were a 500 team. That’s saying something.

Go Andris's free throw shooting!

by Naticus2 on Jul 5, 2010 12:12 AM PDT up reply actions  

Well, let me stipulate: a lot of teams would love to have him provided he’s healthy.

Go Andris's free throw shooting!

by Naticus2 on Jul 5, 2010 12:13 AM PDT up reply actions  

The best backup center in the league?

That’s laughable.

The following guys played less than the most minutes on their team at center and are unambiguously better than Turiaf:

Nazr Mohhamed. Shaquille O’Neal. Brandan Haywood. Carl Landry. DeAndre Jordan. Josh Boone. Martin Gortat. Marcus Camby. Greg Oden. Joe Pryzbilla (if you consider one of those guys a starter, then add LeMarcus ALdredge to the list – he played most of his time at center this year) Antonio McDyess.

I agree with you that a lot of teams would love to have him – but I don’t think he would get anywhere close to 20mpg on most of those teams.

by Ronaldinho on Jul 5, 2010 9:00 AM PDT up reply actions  

Lamarcus Aldridge sucks.

Kobe's a jerk and overrated.
"Frankly your desire to be a seller is just proof of how blinded you are by your hatred of Sabean"-giantsrainman..LOL
"We didn't win our independence from the British to watch Aaron Rowand hit this bad,"-KNBR caller.

by GovernorStephCurry on Jul 5, 2010 10:13 PM PDT up reply actions  

at contributing to winning basketball.

Kobe's a jerk and overrated.
"Frankly your desire to be a seller is just proof of how blinded you are by your hatred of Sabean"-giantsrainman..LOL
"We didn't win our independence from the British to watch Aaron Rowand hit this bad,"-KNBR caller.

by GovernorStephCurry on Jul 5, 2010 10:14 PM PDT up reply actions  

Minny went (1-17) in the 18 games be played for Minny

Avging 8 pts/5 pts. Kahn is worst GM on the planet.

I’d rather be stuck with a GOOD player who makes more than bad one.

by Bob on Jul 3, 2010 1:40 PM PDT up reply actions  

Gay became super untradable

when he signed that. In my eyes, he’s about as untradeable as a player can be. His contract averages $16 M year. To get that contract, you have to legitimately be one of the best players in the league. Not only is Gay not in that class, he’s not even close.

Pro-Skub for life

by Reverend_Randy on Jul 2, 2010 4:59 PM PDT up reply actions  

New Jersey would take him on that contract in a heartbeat.

All the teams who miss out on the big free agents would take Gay. There were teams prepared to offer a max front loaded contract to force Memphis not to match. Salmons and Gay are by far the most tradable. They are GOOD players. Unlike the rest of the guys, Gooden… Darko.. Frye.. c’mon you’re stuck with them for the duration of their contracts.

by Bob on Jul 3, 2010 1:31 PM PDT up reply actions  

Gay might be the worst player on that list outside of Darko

Kobe sucks
"Frankly your desire to be a seller is just proof of how blinded you are by your hatred of Sabean"-giantsrainman..LOL

by GovernorStephCurry on Jul 3, 2010 4:31 PM PDT up reply actions  

why anyone would vote for Frye?

maybe it was just process of elimination ?

Rudy Gay: 5 years, $80 million: way over priced
John Salmons: 5 years, $39 million: unconvinced he would make us that much better
Amir Johnson: 5 years, $34 million: closest second to Frye
Drew Gooden: 5 years, $32 million: no, no, no.
Channing Frye: 5 years, $30 millon: mobile, good shooting, 6’11 NBA playoff tested yet young
Darko Milicic: 4 years, $20 million: no, hell no.

none of them excite at those numbers, it wasn’t like there was a great choice

by hardcore on Jul 2, 2010 5:16 PM PDT up reply actions  

Frye is overrated. shooting 3s is a cool gimmick but it makes him 1-dimensional offensively, and a poor offensive rebounder. Obviously, on the defensive end he just sucks…

Confront racism: Boycott Arizona

by The Bimbo Coles Experience on Jul 2, 2010 6:30 PM PDT up reply actions  

It's interesting to have a very good 3 point shooter

at the 4/5. It really opens things up for the rest of the team.

Pro-Skub for life

by Reverend_Randy on Jul 2, 2010 6:31 PM PDT up reply actions  

That’s the theory, but does it really pay real rewards? Does Troy Murphy open things up for the rest of the team?

It gets mentioned like it’s a game changer, but I don’t think the opposing big men really take the bait and challenge the three point shooter often enough to open things up for everyone else, or at least not often enough to balance out that they are more or less giving up on any opportunity for an offensive rebound.

by jae on Jul 2, 2010 6:52 PM PDT up reply actions  

From my experience, it does open things up in ways that are a little subtle. It’s more subtle in the NBA with the speed at which people can recover. It’s hard for us to see. That said, from my experience, when my jumper is on, I have power over the defense in a way that I don’t otherwise. As a big, I attract attention as it is, people always trying to double team me. If there’s a switch and some short guy is covering me, and my jumper is on, my opponents are scared when I’m at midrange. Everyone looks at me. For Kobe’s teammates, everyone looking at him is a big help. A big man with a jump shot and a mismatch has a similar effect.

Go Andris's free throw shooting!

by Naticus2 on Jul 2, 2010 7:22 PM PDT up reply actions  

Of course, he has to be a good passer and have a decent b-ball IQ, too (which I do).

Go Andris's free throw shooting!

by Naticus2 on Jul 2, 2010 7:23 PM PDT up reply actions  

I suspect that your experience includes zero minutes in the NBA. The difference between even a very, very competitive rec league and the NBA is so fantastically different as to leave many of the conclusions drawn off of personal experience all but meaningless.

The “logical” arguments about why it should make a difference aren’t nearly as important as actual data. Who are the big men who possess superior ouside shots? Does their presence in games aid their teammates’ FG%? If not, it doesn’t matter how reasonable the argument seems.

by jae on Jul 2, 2010 8:05 PM PDT up reply actions   1 recs

Who are the big men who possess superior ouside shots? Does their presence in games aid their teammates’ FG%? If not, it doesn’t matter how reasonable the argument seems.

Also does the team give up more than it gains by having a soft outside big versus a tough inside banger? It’s hard to find a guy who’s both a shaq inside and a morrow outside.

Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.

by Skeptic con Urquell on Jul 2, 2010 8:39 PM PDT up reply actions  

As I said, one would have to have a high b-ball IQ as well. Of course, I suspect everyone with a “good b-ball IQ” has a good jump shot as well, and that includes big men. Most big men most likely do not have high b-ball IQ’s, so we’re not going to see the results of a good jump shot show up in the FG%’s of their teammates.

Go Andris's free throw shooting!

by Naticus2 on Jul 2, 2010 11:33 PM PDT up reply actions  

Sure. But you could make a major point in support of your argument if -

- you could give us ONE three-point shooting big man who’s team is clearly better offensively when he’s on the floor at the top of the key compared to when he’s off the floor.

by Ronaldinho on Jul 3, 2010 8:56 AM PDT up reply actions  

I’m not talking about 3 point shooting big men. I think a mid-range jumper has the same effect.

Go Andris's free throw shooting!

by Naticus2 on Jul 3, 2010 10:31 AM PDT up reply actions  

Well, that's an interesting and completely different discussion.

There’s no question that a big man having a mid-range jumper changes how they’re defender. I won’t argue with you on that one.

I’d just like to point out that this is the first post since you mentioned the advantages of a 3-pt shooting big man where you used the words “mid range” or any words to that effect. It’s very hard to read this part of the thread and NOT think you were talking about 3-pt shooting.

by Ronaldinho on Jul 3, 2010 4:30 PM PDT up reply actions  

I was speaking about outside shooting in general. Having a 3 is good, because it proves you can shoot outside. It’s not like having a 3 point shot makes you a worse mid-range shooter. I suspect it makes you better.

Go Andris's free throw shooting!

by Naticus2 on Jul 4, 2010 4:02 PM PDT up reply actions  

“I was speaking about outside shooting in general.”

I’m not sure how any of us were supposed to know that.

Apparently when you wrote “it” at 7:22 on the 2nd you were talking about “outside shooting in general” despite the fact that the post you were responding to was clearly talking about 3-pt shooting.

by Ronaldinho on Jul 4, 2010 11:13 PM PDT up reply actions  

IT=“the fact that he can shoot 3 pointers.” I wasn’t talking about shooting them per se. The fact that he CAN is what I was referring to, i.e. the quality of being able to shoot 3’s. It wasn’t entirely clear, obviously. That said, it should be clear now.

Go Andris's free throw shooting!

by Naticus2 on Jul 5, 2010 12:14 AM PDT up reply actions  

They do jail when you hit over 40% on over 6 attempters per 36..

and have a TS% of .598 it’s less of a gimmick and more effective. He’s an excellent pick and pop player or just in general shooter. Offensively, if you have a SF and Center who rebound well you are fine. However the Suns had Amare who is below average rebounder for every position

by tafkasam on Jul 2, 2010 9:24 PM PDT up reply actions  

Right. You make my point very well. The Ws having very questionable rebounding, so Frye’s deficiency would be an even bigger problem.

Confront racism: Boycott Arizona

by The Bimbo Coles Experience on Jul 3, 2010 1:38 PM PDT up reply actions  

You know what I'd rather have than a 4/5 who can shoot 3s?

A 4/5 who can score consistently in the low post.

The primary advantage of a 3-shooting big is when he’s worse than the guy guarding him, so that you essentially “win” by removing them both from the main course of action. eg, this is why you had Manute Bol shoot the occasional 3 (but he still shot too many).

Of course, against a team with have a brain, they’ll put their worse-defending big man on the guy who shoots threes, so essentially for it to work to your advantage your guy has to be worse than BOTH of your opponent’s big men.

And that’s a lot of money to give to somebody under those circumstances. :)

by Ronaldinho on Jul 3, 2010 8:54 AM PDT up reply actions  

Given Amir Johnson’s age and production, he seems like a pretty solid choice to me.

And of course, he’s pulling up the rear at 3%. ;-P

Meanwhile, Frye, coming the first of his five NBA seasons in which he hasn’t sucked, is #1. And Gay, making $16M a year for being a glorified dime-a-dozen chucker, is #2.

Man, we GSoMers really are as smart as NBA GMs…

There will be no extra point!

by Sleepy Freud on Jul 2, 2010 6:38 PM PDT up reply actions   1 recs

Man, we GSoMers really are as smart as NBA GMs.

As smart? I’m insulted.

by jae on Jul 2, 2010 6:53 PM PDT up reply actions  

Thats the point.

Kobe sucks
"Frankly your desire to be a seller is just proof of how blinded you are by your hatred of Sabean"-giantsrainman..LOL

by GovernorStephCurry on Jul 2, 2010 7:21 PM PDT up reply actions  

I didn’t know who Amir was, so I didn’t know to get him. I picked Gay, simply because I like him and it seemed fun. In hindsight, Frye would have been better as Gay is way too expensive. Fry has been okay, plus he’s a big man; they’re always paid more. The Suns weren’t stupid, IMO, because Frye will probably continue to play well for them. I think he just fits their system. That price for a guy who plays regular minutes, is a big and may even get better is not a bad deal. I don’t think that’s a bad contract, all things considered.

Go Andris's free throw shooting!

by Naticus2 on Jul 2, 2010 7:27 PM PDT up reply actions  

And now it’s Amar’e for 5 yrs and 100 mil.

Yikes!!

"If God made us in his image then he must be dumb too, and a little ugly on the side."

Frank Zappa

by qin on Jul 2, 2010 11:55 AM PDT reply actions  

and maybe he has a soft spot for Nelly

And Posey is having amother great game.

by JohnnyDangerously on Jul 2, 2010 7:29 PM PDT up reply actions  

and maybe he has a soft spot for Nelly

Hot In Herre was almost a decade ago. What’s Nelly really done since?

by jae on Jul 2, 2010 8:06 PM PDT up reply actions  

That dude is no slouch. I’d take Amar’e over him, though. But not by a landslide.

Go Andris's free throw shooting!

by Naticus2 on Jul 2, 2010 7:29 PM PDT up reply actions  

just went to 80 min but still…

"If God made us in his image then he must be dumb too, and a little ugly on the side."

Frank Zappa

by qin on Jul 3, 2010 8:46 PM PDT up reply actions  

Amir it is then.

The options on the poll all looked quite unappetizing. It came down to Frye or Johnson. I went with Johnson cause he seems tougher than Frye. Does the dirty work and still could get better.

"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 Jul 2, 2010 11:56 AM PDT reply actions  

Frye

I took Frye just because he scorched the Warriors last year. But I don’t think I’d take anyone of them.

by John Will on Jul 2, 2010 1:14 PM PDT reply actions  

There is a good side to this madness

The franchises making the bad deals are going to suck in a couple of years. In order for the Warriors to move up into the playoffs, it helps if some other teams move down. I like it!

by breaker on Jul 2, 2010 1:26 PM PDT reply actions  

In the words of Chaz Michael Michaels

“It’s mindbottling isn’t it? …. when things get so crazy, it gets your thoughts all trapped, like in a bottle.”

This free agency season is indeed, “mindbottling.”

by brian chung on Jul 2, 2010 2:13 PM PDT reply actions  

had to go wit darko unfortunately

wouldnt want ANY of those guys on my roster for what their asking but darko would be the cheapest and for the less amount of time…and if i were writing that contract for darko no money would be guaranteed

KeWzEe

by KewZee on Jul 2, 2010 2:46 PM PDT reply actions  

I went with Frye

his contract is relatively modest and he’s still young. I probably would like to pay him about 1/2-2/3s what he’s making, but he’s hardly a cap killer.
Rudy Gay is the worst contract in the list. I’d like for the people who voted for him to explain their reasoning a little. He was last on my list.

Pro-Skub for life

by Reverend_Randy on Jul 2, 2010 4:58 PM PDT reply actions  

Same here. Gay is a player who barely should command more than mle yet he’s getting the max…. Unbelievable.

Kobe sucks
"Frankly your desire to be a seller is just proof of how blinded you are by your hatred of Sabean"-giantsrainman..LOL

by GovernorStephCurry on Jul 2, 2010 5:51 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions  

My rationale is that he’s an extremely gifted athlete with good length. His problem may simply be that he’s on the Grizz. On the right team, his true potential could be squeezed out, and he could become an elite player. He has largely been a winner with the Grizz, at least as far as his personal gameplay. I’m a fan. That said, I picked him impulsively. Frye, in hindsight, was a better pick than Gay.

Go Andris's free throw shooting!

by Naticus2 on Jul 2, 2010 7:32 PM PDT up reply actions  

yahoo sports agrees that the contract is really bad, but they do say this:

known for over half a decade now that this guy has enough in him talent-wise to do great things. Franchise-level work, which is convenient, because he’s being paid like a franchise-level player right now.[/quote]

Like I say, he has a star’s body and probably the potential. If he played for the Spurts with Poppa, yeah, he’d be good.

Go Andris's free throw shooting!

by Naticus2 on Jul 2, 2010 7:36 PM PDT up reply actions  

oops… quote fail.

Go Andris's free throw shooting!

by Naticus2 on Jul 2, 2010 7:38 PM PDT up reply actions  

couldn't agree more

And at same time it temps me with Rudy Gay cause one day if he puts it all together he will be a star. BUT on a positive side… Marc Gasol is gone

by tafkasam on Jul 2, 2010 9:31 PM PDT up reply actions  

You know, for it to be "known for half a decade" that

a guy can do great things, I’d think he should actually do great things on the floor once in a while.

One thing that this makes me aware of, though, is that Monta should be very tradeable if we want to trade him. I mean, do you like Monta for $11m, non-escalating, or Gay at the max? That’s a no-brainer, right?

by Ronaldinho on Jul 3, 2010 8:58 AM PDT up reply actions  

Monta is a tweener who lacks size. Physically, he’s limited. Gay is the right size. As far as Monta, Monta on the right team would be worth 11 million… maybe. Gay at the max? He’d be less likely to be worth it. But he has less of a ceiling. He’s a gamble, and when I picked him, I was in a gambling mood. Stupid gambling, but at least one could imagine him going into elite status. I can’t imagine Monta doing that.

Go Andris's free throw shooting!

by Naticus2 on Jul 3, 2010 10:35 AM PDT up reply actions  

Monta is a tweener who lacks size. Physically, he’s limited. Gay is the right size.

And this is how so many bad NBA personnel decisions get made, hypothesizing about what someone should be able to do and paying them for that rather than paying them for what they can actually do. Gay is as tall as many PFs, yet he’s an inferior rebounder to Azubuike. He should be able to shoot over guys guarding him, yet his scoring efficiency is below average. He can’t seem to spot an open man to pass to, so he becomes a liability on the perimeter if he isn’t able to shoot over his man and connect.

But he has less of a ceiling.

Gay’s “ceiling” starts to be real, real irrelevant when he’s real close to the age where most players peak and he’s still a sub par contributor. He fools people because he looks like he should be a real good player and his scoring average is high enough that the fools still think he must be really good. He isn’t. What someone imagines him to be isn’t really relevant when he’s shown absolutely zero indication that he’s getting closer to that elusive ceiling over the last three seasons. He hasn’t improved. He scores at about the same rate and efficiency. His rebounding had slightly regressed. He’s not any better at finding open men. The only thing he does any better than he did when he got to the league is he’s marginally less prone to turn the ball over. But that doesn’t add up to getting close to this hypothetical ‘ceiling.’

Had Gay shown any upward trajectory in last few years then it might be a gamble. It might then be the sort of thing where this mythical high ceiling had any meaning. But he hasn’t. It’s a gamble in the same sense that taking a wad of bills, mixing them into a compost heap and hoping that a dollar bill tree miraculously sprouts up out of the mess is a gamble. His new contract is about as idiotic as any in the NBA, and there have been some truly moronic contracts.

by jae on Jul 3, 2010 11:01 AM PDT up reply actions   1 recs

Gay’s "ceiling" starts to be real, real irrelevant when he’s real close to the age where most players peak

 It don’t become irrelevant, it just becomes lower.

Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.

by Skeptic con Urquell on Jul 3, 2010 11:08 AM PDT up reply actions  

Yeah, it was a stupid gamble. I was letting my imagination run away with me. I think perhaps he hasn’t improved, though, because of the team he’s on. As I said, with the right coaching and the right team, perhaps he would have emerged. Granted, I have no idea how likely that is to be true or not, because I don’t know the numbers on that sort of thing. But it seems like a sound theory.

Go Andris's free throw shooting!

by Naticus2 on Jul 4, 2010 4:04 PM PDT up reply actions  

His problem may simply be that he’s on the Grizz

That’s fair. I agree that he would really benefit from a change of scenery, but man, that contract. It’s probably twice as much as he should be making.

Pro-Skub for life

by Reverend_Randy on Jul 2, 2010 9:09 PM PDT up reply actions  

I can't believe I'm saying this...

But I’ll take Darko. Fewest years + smallest amount of $$$ = Smallest Risk

Darko did play fairly well for Minny late in the season, and he remains a solid defensive player who can block shots. He is still young, for whatever that’s worth. Since Al Jefferson doesn’t play any D, it does seem to make Darko more valuable for that team.

The rest of those contracts? Ugh.

Rudy Gay – $80M+ for a guy who doesn’t play D and who plays a very replaceable position? No thanks.

John Salmons – I did read that the 5th year is not guaranteed (not sure how true that is), so that makes it a little more palatable. But didn’t the Bucks just acquire Maggette? How is that supposed to work? Will the Bucks get to play with two balls on offense?

Amir Johnson – Wow. All I can say is Wow.

Drew Gooden – So, last year all he could get was a one year, $1.8M deal. He did not improve. He is one year older. His numbers have gone down almost every year since ‘04-’05. And now he gets 5 years, $32M? The Bucks will be Gooden’s 9th team (not even counting his very short stay in Washington this year). This makes sense.

Channing Frye – While this seems “reasonable” by today’s market standards, how many good seasons has Frye had? He can shoot, and that’s it. Yeah, his size helps space the floor for the Suns, but Nash won’t play forever setting up Frye for wide open baskets. I just have a feeling this one is going to end in disaster.

To answer the main question in this thread: No, I’m not glad the Warriors have no money to spend on free agents. It shows a clear lack of long-term organizational planning, and that’s (one of the primary reasons) why this team stinks. Granted, if they did have $$$, I’m sure they would blow it like the Grizzlies or Hawks by overspending on players who will not win a title. But when you offer Gilbert $100M+, Brand $90M, and finally “settle” on Corey for $50M, it shows a lack of any managerial focus or understanding of the players in this league.

by UncleCliffy on Jul 2, 2010 6:54 PM PDT reply actions  

Darko's just bad but i agree with the main point that he won't hamstring a teams financial situation even if he (continues to) sucks.

Kobe sucks
"Frankly your desire to be a seller is just proof of how blinded you are by your hatred of Sabean"-giantsrainman..LOL

by GovernorStephCurry on Jul 2, 2010 7:22 PM PDT up reply actions  

Kinda makes you rethink the baddness of the Maggette signing

Well, not me… I never thought it was supremely awful, but seriously. There are much, much worse ways you can screw up a signing than what the Warriors did with Maggette.

Trust me, learning english isn’t a waste of time. It is actually sort of useful.

-randolphforpresident

by Dubs fan in Boston on Jul 2, 2010 8:13 PM PDT reply actions  

Amir Johnson’s contract is approximately the MLE, a bit more if I calculate right. Those tend not to be overly difficult to unload if he doesn’t wind up producing, but it appears he can do some useful things. He’s a reasonably good rebounder (above average for a big man) and remarkably efficient from the floor. Not anything that you’d confuse with shooting range, but he won’t hurt you by taking bad shots and hasn’t changed that with more playing time.

Solid rebounder, efficient and doesn’t do stupid things…those guys are useful, not to transform a team, but still useful. At about the MLE, they’re worthwhile. For a backup big who won’t hurt you, can come in grab boards for 20-25mpg (before the fouls get the best of him), that’s not really such a bad deal. He’s just not at all exciting, but exciting isn’t a good way to evaluate contract value.

Importantly, Johnson is 22 and will be 23 next season, meaning this contract takes him through what should be his most productive seasons. He’s He should continue to improve for another year or so, unlike most of the guys on the market who are at or past peak production. It has the most chance of his production exceeding what he’s done in the past, whiile most of the signees are likely to start to decline much sooner, even if that rate is rather slow. It’s the least ridiculous of the contract so far for this reason as well.

Amir’s deal is actually the closest thing to a bargain in the lot (not that it’s a bargain at this point), but it appears that the fewest GSoMers are in favor of it. Points per game seems to be dominating the thinking again, predictably so.

by jae on Jul 2, 2010 8:22 PM PDT reply actions  

Interesting viewpoint. I did not realize he was that young, so that’s definitely a plus.

He’s a reasonably good rebounder (above average for a big man) and remarkably efficient from the floor
before the fouls get the best of him

But aren’t these two points highly correlated? In other words, isn’t Amir a good rebounder and efficient from the floor because he’s never tired? He fouls so frequently that he’s never on the floor. He has never averaged more than 18 minutes per game, so no matter how efficient he is (doesn’t he only score from very close in?), his actual production is lackluster.

By comparison, for about the same money, Gooden’s production is much more impressive, though he is not as efficient.

Jae, is there any formula which calculates both efficiency and production? Obviously both are important when quantifying a player’s “worth”.

by UncleCliffy on Jul 2, 2010 9:00 PM PDT up reply actions  

No, his lack of minutes from fouls isn't making him better in those minutes.'

It’s definitely making him less conductive to winning basketball because he produces well in his minutes and the millsap doctrine. If you don’t know what i am talking about, you can just google the “millsap doctrine”.

Kobe sucks
"Frankly your desire to be a seller is just proof of how blinded you are by your hatred of Sabean"-giantsrainman..LOL

by GovernorStephCurry on Jul 2, 2010 9:28 PM PDT up reply actions  

Jae, is there any formula which calculates both efficiency and production? Obviously both are important when quantifying a player’s "worth".

We can call this ‘the Monta Doctrine’

Nice complimentary player. Horrible lead player

by tafkasam on Jul 2, 2010 9:35 PM PDT up reply actions  

Nice complimentary player. Horrible lead player

Complimentary players are always useful, but the collective bargaining agreement doesn’t allow them. You have to pay them something.

by jae on Jul 2, 2010 11:10 PM PDT up reply actions  

Agreed

On Monta, I feel like if he’s our super sub 6th man or 3rd offensive option he’s awesome and your team plays well. Kind of Jason Terry-esque in that way.

by tafkasam on Jul 3, 2010 9:51 AM PDT up reply actions  

On Monta

If he’s not asked or allowed to do things he’s not good at (i.e. handling the ball, initiating offense), he’s a very effective scoring option. 6th man, 3rd option, 1st option, whatever. Just stop asking him to be a PG.

Trust me, learning english isn’t a waste of time. It is actually sort of useful.

-randolphforpresident

by Dubs fan in Boston on Jul 5, 2010 8:28 PM PDT up reply actions  

He has to accept not being a PG when asked.

And there’s some cause to be nervous that he’ll do that.

by Ronaldinho on Jul 5, 2010 9:57 PM PDT up reply actions  

isn’t Amir a good rebounder and efficient from the floor because he’s never tired?

Probably not. There’s just about zero evidence that “playing fresh” in limited minutes boosts someone’s rebound rate.

He only scores from inside. A) Those points count and B) there’s more to the game than scoring. A guy who scores efficiently on limited shots doesn’t detract from the offense of others. A guy with “range” who isn’t efficient and shoots is less valuable because he’s taking points away from his teammates.

By comparison, for about the same money, Gooden’s production is much more impressive, though he is not as efficient.

He is about the same price. He is not “much more productive” per minute played. He’s far less productive. Production is not a synonym for “scoring points”. Gooden is also going to be 29, which means he’s on the downside, about to be on the part of the downside where a player can (and most do) start to deteriorate rapidly. Odds favor Amir getting better and playing more. Odds favor Gooden getting worse and playing less than he has in the past.

Jae, is there any formula which calculates both efficiency and production?

Efficiency is part of production in any formula that’s worth anything. Wins produced does a good job of handling it. It’s got flaws, but fewer than most, and far fewer than popular opinion, that overrates (and overpays) just for scoring average. Wins produced really, really likes Amir. Gooden has been above average, but only marginally. He’s not a terrible investment, but Amir is a much better investment.

by jae on Jul 2, 2010 11:09 PM PDT up reply actions  

He only scores from inside. A) Those points count and B) there’s more to the game than scoring. A guy who scores efficiently on limited shots doesn’t detract from the offense of others.

Ok, those close-in points certainly count. It would be real difficult to argue against that. Ok, now it’s my turn to make a point as ridiculously obvious as that one. You cannot score if you are sitting on the bench. There, we are even with overly obvious comments.

Let’s say for one second that your quote above is not referring to Amir in particular. It sounds much like, say, Andris Biedrins: ridiculously high FG%, not many shots, does other things besides score, etc, etc. But when you say “doesn’t detract from the offense of others,” I think you are just guessing. When the W’s are on offense with Andris on the court, the defense obviously knows about Andris’s offensive strengths and weaknesses. Because Andris has no range, the opponent can play defense in a way that allows their players to focus on the other four players. Doesn’t this in turn drag down the other W’s efficiency because the opponent does not have to respect Andris’s offensive game?

Gooden is also going to be 29, which means he’s on the downside, about to be on the part of the downside where a player can (and most do) start to deteriorate rapidly. Odds favor Amir getting better and playing more. Odds favor Gooden getting worse and playing less than he has in the past.

I used Gooden only as an example because he’s in this thread. Read what I wrote about Gooden above: his best season was probably in ‘04-’05, and he’s gotten consistently worse since then. I am not arguing that Gooden is a better signing, just simply that per game, he scores more and he rebounds more. I understand he does not do this as efficiently as Amir, but clearly if you cannot stay on the court, you can only be so useful to your team no matter how efficient. Imagine a team from an efficiency standpoint with 12 Amir’s: all 12 are efficient, but no one can stay on the court. They’d lead the league in efficiency, yet they’d probably lose every game since there would be no production. Correct?

far fewer than popular opinion, that overrates (and overpays) just for scoring average

Once again, check my post above. I do not support the signings of players who score a lot. In fact, I bash those signings.

by UncleCliffy on Jul 2, 2010 11:42 PM PDT up reply actions  

When the W’s are on offense with Andris on the court, the defense obviously knows about Andris’s offensive strengths and weaknesses. Because Andris has no range, the opponent can play defense in a way that allows their players to focus on the other four players.

What “way of playing” him is this?

You can’t leave Andris open, because if one of his teammates passes him the ball he’s one of the best in the league at putting in the basket (when healthy, yada yada yada).

How do teams defend Andris differently because he has no low post moves to speak of? It seems to me that you’re hypothesizing something that’s simply not grounded in reality.

Now, truth is, with Monta running the point you probably could leave Beidrins early and often on double-teams, not because of Bean’s lack of skills, but because Monta has shown he doesn’t make the pass often enough. But nothing about Beans game allows you to slack off of him defensively.

by Ronaldinho on Jul 3, 2010 9:11 AM PDT up reply actions  

nothing about Beans game allows you to slack off of him defensively.

All you have to do is foul him inside and on the outside, just leave him alone. You can slack on him a lot more than, for example, Luis Scola or Amar’e Stoudemire. Granted, you must keep your eyes on him at all times around the basket. But away, no worries whatsoever. Biedrins, on offense, creates traffic around the basket.

Go Andris's free throw shooting!

by Naticus2 on Jul 3, 2010 10:38 AM PDT up reply actions  

Exactly my point

Thanks for the support Naticus2. Players who have no range allow the defense (the whole team, not just the guy guarding Andris or Amir or whomever) to play a more condensed style, which “creates traffic around the basket.” So, even if it doesn’t impact Andris’s offensive efficiency, it will most certainly impact his teammates.

Jae, care to comment on this?

by UncleCliffy on Jul 3, 2010 12:31 PM PDT up reply actions  

I don’t get bogged down in the hypothetical when there’s real data.

This season, Biedrins’ presence on the court made the Warriors a significantly worse team on offense. The overall offensive efficiency (which at the team level is the only measure that matters at all) dropped. This isn’t surprising. He played poorly. They were a better offensive team when he was sitting the year before as well.

However, in 0708 and 0607 the team was much, much more offensively potent when he played. Those were good teams and he was making the better. (He also had a rather signficant positive influence on the offense in Monty’s last year as a coach here though he played rather limited minutes — similar to the total he had this year though if you intelligently think sample size matters). So how did his lack of range somehow flip-flop the effect on teammates? If it were true that lack of range “will most certainly impact his teammates” why were they better when he played a few seasons ago?

You are making hypothetical arguments about why something should or shouldn’t be. This is not a case where your hypotheticals are worth anything at all. You can argue foreer about what you think his impact should be, but far more important is what his impact actually has been. What’s far more important is what actually happens in real games, and there’s a good record of that. When the team has been good, he’s made them better.

by jae on Jul 3, 2010 2:28 PM PDT up reply actions  

This season, Biedrins’ presence on the court made the Warriors a significantly worse team on offense. The overall offensive efficiency (which at the team level is the only measure that matters at all) dropped. This isn’t surprising. He played poorly. They were a better offensive team when he was sitting the year before as well.
You are making hypothetical arguments about why something should or shouldn’t be.

At some point, you can’t just look at the numbers (which can be debated b/c of the way stats are recorded in the NBA) and say fact is fact. You have to understand HOW those numbers were compiled and answer WHY the numbers are what they are. Maybe Biedrins struggled this year because the opposing defenses finally made the adjustment to his (lack of) offensive game. You can’t just simply say Andris stunk and leave it at that.

Jae, I get the impression that you believe you can understand a team by only looking at the numbers without ever watching the games. Isn’t your entire quantitative stance based on this notion?

by UncleCliffy on Jul 3, 2010 8:46 PM PDT up reply actions  

Couldn't I just turn around and say that

the Warriors offense looked good better with Biedrins on the court than not? I mean, why is it that you can say “it’s a fact” without providing evidence or anything? If a player posts a positive offensive on/off number, it’s either because almost all of their minutes came along side a very good offensive player or because they actually contribute on the offensive end.

Pro-Skub for life

by Reverend_Randy on Jul 3, 2010 9:35 PM PDT up reply actions  

why is it that you can say "it’s a fact" without providing evidence or anything?

The reason I rarely provide quantitative backing for my many comments is because I don’t trust NBA statistics. My professional background is in statistics and data analysis. In that field, one must be very careful about quoting numbers because a mistake might cost a company a lot of money.

I watch a lot of NBA basketball; I’ve seen 80% of Warriors minutes for the past seven years. I also played a lot of basketball (some organized, some not so much) growing up, so I think I have a decent idea what I’m talking about. When I look at primary numbers from an NBA game (the ones kept by the official scorer that can be found in the box score) I’ve watched closely, I frequently get the feeling that those numbers don’t accurately represent what I’ve just watched. There is too much data during a basketball game that is not recorded. (I guess over time the primary stats have gotten more and more complex, but I still believe much is missed.)

Those primary numbers are then calculated with other primary numbers (like assist to turnover ratio) and/or with constants to create secondary statistics. In my opinion, the error frequently gets multiplied when performing computations on error-filled primary data.

Some statistics do a better job than others at painting a quantitative picture of a basketball game, but I’d rather not pick and choose which ones to use and which ones to discard

I can provide in-game examples of what I’m talking about if you want to know more.

by UncleCliffy on Jul 4, 2010 1:02 AM PDT up reply actions   1 recs

Jae, I get the impression that you believe you can understand a team by only looking at the numbers without ever watching the games. Isn’t your entire quantitative stance based on this notion?

You get the wrong impression. I’m sorry you find yourself so confused.

by jae on Jul 3, 2010 9:43 PM PDT up reply actions  

But you seem to quote basketball empirical evidence as if it is fact. You look up a stat or calculate a formula, and then you make a direct 100% conclusion based on that. In the NBA, I find that very dangerous.

by UncleCliffy on Jul 4, 2010 12:40 AM PDT up reply actions  

Empirical evidence is real, Cliffy. Are you hopelessly confused as to what empirical means? Or is there some other issue that gives you problems? Perhaps the word evidence is what you’re having trouble with.

You look up a stat or calculate a formula, and then you make a direct 100% conclusion based on that.

This is false. I would appreciate it if you would cease to tell me that I do things that I do not do. I do tend to give weight to arguments drawn from large numbers of observations and objective criteria over subjective opinion. Don’t confuse this with what you’re charging.

by jae on Jul 4, 2010 8:42 AM PDT up reply actions  

Empirical evidence is real, Cliffy. Are you hopelessly confused as to what empirical means? Or is there some other issue that gives you problems?

Jae, I would appreciate it if you didn’t try to belittle me. I have a quantitative background across multiple industries. Please do not assume I’m some idiot off the street.

Look at my response above to Rev_Randy. You most certainly do not have to agree with me. That’s cool. But I do make a legitimate point, and I can back it up with many examples.

by UncleCliffy on Jul 4, 2010 12:12 PM PDT up reply actions  

It's rather common place for people to respond to being belittled by raising their hackles and belittling right back

You’re the one who started insulting JAE by suggesting that he doesn’t watch games, or doesn’t care about watching games, or…

Jae, I get the impression that you believe you can understand a team by only looking at the numbers without ever watching the games. Isn’t your entire quantitative stance based on this notion?

Cliffy, if you’re going to be derisive about the entire way somebody approaches their analysis, they’re not going to respond with flowers and puppies. Be polite, or expect others to treat you as you’ve been treating them. Didn’t you go to kindergarten?

Trust me, learning english isn’t a waste of time. It is actually sort of useful.

-randolphforpresident

by Dubs fan in Boston on Jul 5, 2010 8:33 PM PDT up reply actions   1 recs

Maybe Biedrins struggled this year because the opposing defenses finally made the adjustment to his (lack of) offensive game. You can’t just simply say Andris stunk and leave it at that.

This is a reasonable point in theory.

Unfortunately, it doesn’t point in the direction of your argument when you actually apply it.

This season, we saw Biedrins fail to attack the basket when he had the ball in his hands. We saw him mix it up on rebounds less. In past seasons, he performed much better in both of those areas.

I have a hard time seeing any evidence that Biedrins decline had anything to do with how other teams played him. What I do see when I look at the team is that it seems to be a function of two things:

First, his injury, which as mentioned robbed him of aggressiveness and confidence.

Second, being on a team without a real PG, and thus no longer getting fed down low at the end of drives with the same regularity.

If you want to claim that other teams defended him differently, by all means, please explain what they did and provide some examples. But I think you’ll find it hard to do because what HE was doing differently and what his teammates were doing different was so much more dramatic that it appears to easily explain the decline in his production.

by Ronaldinho on Jul 4, 2010 9:27 AM PDT up reply actions  

This is a reasonable point in theory.
I have a hard time seeing any evidence that Biedrins decline had anything to do with how other teams played him.

This is my fault. I should have expanded further upon this. I used the word ‘maybe’ when I described the adjusting defense. Obviously, in reality, there were many contributing factors to Biedrins’s struggles. And maybe, just maybe, the adjusting defense was one of them. That’s all I meant.

being on a team without a real PG

I don’t get this at all. Don’t the Warriors have a real PG? Isn’t that about the only thing they have?

by UncleCliffy on Jul 4, 2010 12:17 PM PDT up reply actions  

We do, now ...

I hope, in Curry.

But the year before last, no. Jackson and Monta were being our primary distributors.

And this year, remember that Beans was healthiest at the beginning of last season, when Monta was dominating the ball the most.

Later in the season, as Curry began to emerge as a real point guard, Biedrins was seeing his minutes reduced due to injury/poor effectiveness then he finally sat for the end of the season, when Curry was really taking over the team.

So I would say, no, in the last two seasons Biedrins has not really been on the floor with a real point guard. Curry’s emergence, especially if Monta stops dominating the ball so much this coming season, gives me a real reason to be optimistic that Beidrins could put up improved numbers if he can come back healthy.

by Ronaldinho on Jul 4, 2010 3:19 PM PDT up reply actions  

And maybe, just maybe, the adjusting defense was one of them.

And maybe it was due to the adjusting injury diagnosis. Look, I’m all for “everybody’s banged up,” but not everybody has a sports hernia that doesn’t get properly diagnosed for 3 months. Additionally, a jammed finger or twisted ankle is nothing compared to the excruciating pain Andris probably felt every time he tried to do anything on a basketball court. Fact is, he’d been pretty consistent for three years running prior to this year through various forms of Warriors basketball (We Believe, Post We Believe, The Sucky Stephen Jackson Era). The most significant change between then and last season was that he was trying to play through a painful abdominal injury. Why does it have to be more complicated than that, exactly?

Trust me, learning english isn’t a waste of time. It is actually sort of useful.

-randolphforpresident

by Dubs fan in Boston on Jul 5, 2010 8:40 PM PDT up reply actions  

But we have no control with these stats. Do we have an Andris Biedrins with a higher b-ball IQ and a midrange jump shot to compare him to?

Go Andris's free throw shooting!

by Naticus2 on Jul 4, 2010 4:06 PM PDT up reply actions  

I’m talking about in the case of a mismatch. If you have a mismatch with Biedrins, and he’s going to score, just foul him. That’s a lot better than letting him score. With other bigs, that’s not a good option.

Go Andris's free throw shooting!

by Naticus2 on Jul 4, 2010 4:10 PM PDT up reply actions  

Amir Johnson could turn into a steal

Guy is a pretty efficient scorer/rebounder who under more minutes could be a 12-14 ppg, 9-10 rpg guy. Plays good defense, blocks shots. If he can get 30 minutes per game, i think this contract will look more than fair.

by tafkasam on Jul 2, 2010 9:13 PM PDT reply actions  

Considering the current and future state of the economy (things ain’t getting better any time soon), I’m surprised how quickly these teams were in regards to offering mediocre players like Gay these HUGE contracts.

by realist_ on Jul 2, 2010 11:14 PM PDT reply actions  

What I don’t understand, though I’ve kept my free agent-watching to a minimum, is why the Rockets are not a hot destination for one of these players. I have no idea if they have the cap room or anything, all I know is that Yao told Bosh he was looking forward to playing with him next year…so maybe they do have a way to get one of them on?

Houston seems to have a damn good supporting cast for Bosh, they have Brooks at the 1 and Martin at the 2, Ariza at the 3, Bosh at the 4 and a returning Yao at the 5? With Battier, Hayes, Hill, Budinger, and potentially Scola and Patterson off the bench? If Yao really has recovered from his injury long enough to play a full season, that is a beast of a team.

by belilaugh on Jul 3, 2010 11:43 AM PDT reply actions  

What I don’t understand, though I’ve kept my free agent-watching to a minimum, is why the Rockets are not a hot destination for one of these players. I have no idea if they have the cap room or anything

They don’t. This severely limits their ability to offer free agents anything and keeps them from being a destination that anyone is considering accordingly. None of the big names are taking MLEs.

by jae on Jul 3, 2010 12:00 PM PDT up reply actions  

So what was Yao talking about then I wonder?

by belilaugh on Jul 3, 2010 2:25 PM PDT up reply actions  

Yao had the option to opt out of his contract (he chose not to), maybe he thought he’d also be a FA when he allegedly told Bosh?

The other option is a sign and trade, which would be consistent with Bosh’s purported desire to max out this contract for every dollar … in that scenario, Houston has some attractive players for Toronto to consider

by hardcore on Jul 3, 2010 2:56 PM PDT up reply actions  

Don't know if this has been mentioned...

…but the reason for those ridiculous contracts is the possibility of the lock-out next season. Those contracts could be worth almost $4-5 million less if there are only, say 52 games played instead of a full 82 game schedule.

Take out that significant chunk of money and they seem a bit more reasonable.

by DubsDominate on Jul 3, 2010 8:05 PM PDT reply actions  

Yeah so that makes paying Joe Johnson

115 million instead of 120 million any better?

Kobe sucks
"Frankly your desire to be a seller is just proof of how blinded you are by your hatred of Sabean"-giantsrainman..LOL

by GovernorStephCurry on Jul 3, 2010 9:26 PM PDT up 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)

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Ringnovember1981_small
Klay Thompson, a bust?
Small
Why Steph Curry is the Warriors most important player, and why they should heavily consider trading him
Warriors2_medium_small
Tom Abdenour... Where is he now?

Recent FanPosts

Small
Lessons Learned from the Linsanity
Small
A little off topic: does GOM sell t-shirts?
Small
Warriors @ Nuggets Preview
Monta_small
Warrior Wonder Standings (December/January)
Angel_beats__logo_small
Looking at the Late-Game playcalls
Ringnovember1981_small
Should Andris Biedrins be sent to the D-League?
Angel_beats__logo_small
An Alternative Explanation to why the Warriors let Lin, Williams and Bell go
Small
Now's the time to trade Curry to Charlotte

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >


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