Evaluating Biedrins' Desire To Play With An Elite Point Guard
...and whether or not that would really affect his game. In light of his recent interview, here is my reading of some stats that suggest that our sexy Latvian may need to work on his game more for his game to be "different" even with an elite point guard like Steve Nash.
almost 2 years ago
dj fuzzylogic
135 comments
1 recs |
Email
PrintComments
Good read
Beans just can’t create offense for himself and this really broke it down well. As much as Beans may be a good “value”, I don’t see him being a starting center on a competitive team. He’s a liability on defense and according to these numbers he’s really not much of an offensive threat. I hope this year looks up for him because it was painful to watch him last year with his lack of production and more importantly, what seems like a lack of effort.
by Throw up the Dub on Aug 11, 2010 9:45 AM PDT reply actions 4 recs
I don’t see him being a starting center on a competitive team
I don’t see that. Scoring points isn’t the only way for a player to contribute to winning. Biedrins is an excellent rebounder. He’s a good passer, and he gives you solid offense in general – he both scores at a higher efficiency and at a higher rate than the average C. No, he doesn’t do it by creating his own shot, but that’s ok – he doesn’t try to create his own shot when he can’t, and he has great hands to catch and finish when he is open and a teammate finds him. Not many C’s are as good as him at getting themselves open, and then catching and finishing. Those points count, too. Defensively, I don’t see how he’s a liability. Yes, he’s a below average post defender, but he’s a solid help defender, he’s better than most C’s away from the hoop (like in pick and roll situations) because of his quickness, and he’s not as horrible in the post as he seems – when you have to cover all 5 guys on the other team (because nobody stops dribble penetration on the W’s), it makes you look worse than you are. He’s not going to carry a team, but he can easily be a good role player on a competitive team.
by Missing Barry on Aug 11, 2010 9:57 AM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
he can easily be a good role player on a competitive team
And for an example, I seem to remember this one team that beat the #1 seed in the West a few years ago with Biedrins as its only legitimate big man on the entire roster, and followed that up with a 48 win season (with Biedrins once again being the only real big man on the team)…..
by Missing Barry on Aug 11, 2010 9:59 AM PDT up reply actions
I seem to remember this one team that beat the #1 seed in the West a few years ago with Biedrins as its only legitimate big man on the entire roster, and followed that up with a 48 win season (with Biedrins once again being the only real big man on the te
just imagine how good they could have been with a real center?
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Aug 11, 2010 10:49 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Seriously, with Howard, Duncan, or Gasol, or……uhhh…..oh yeah, that’s pretty much the list of star C’s……we definitely would have been good.
Now, if you want to talk about a real PF, I would definitely be on board….
by Missing Barry on Aug 11, 2010 10:59 AM PDT up reply actions
Now, if you want to talk about a real PF, I would definitely be on board…
So why didn’t they keep JRich and get a good big man? I’m wondering if it had to do with Nellie’s fear of being the overdog instead of the underdog? If they’d built on the we believe team their costs woulda gone up and the expectations would have been higher. As it was they could just slip quietly back into mediocre mode with no real objections from the new bandwagoneer fans since they didn’t really care about the finer points of the game anyway? As long as the scoring and running were there the new fans would keep payin the price of admission for a couple of years until the losses started to mount and it became clear the good ship HNS GoldenState was lost?.
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Aug 11, 2010 11:31 AM PDT up reply actions
Nellie’s fear of being the overdog instead of the underdog?
This is one of the more intriquing claims you consistently make, and runs counter to every intuition I have re Nelson’s desire to get into the playoffs and make one final push to put a capstone on his career. I’m certainly over defending Nelson and have zero interest in regurgitating the JRich trade, but am curious what support you rely on to assert this.
"It’s frickin’ Sisyphean to be a Warriors Fan."
but am curious what support you rely on to assert this.
His constant running off players who end up productive somewhere else and his refusal to recognize how all the other teams build their winners? Nellie has been around long enough to see that teams need bigger tougher players if they want to win rings yet he fails to follow the template and falls back into his own style of underdog play. Fool me once shame on you but fool me 30 seasons shame on me.
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Aug 11, 2010 3:04 PM PDT up reply actions
I don't think Nellie ever wanted to trade JRich for BWright
Infact I’m 99% positive. He wanted to trade one of his wings (and he seemed to value Jackson’s skills over Richardson) for a proven PF. He thought his team was one player away from an elite team. With right PF, he probably had a point.
Mullin was intrigued with Wrights potential (who in terms of raw potential is right fit for Nellie PF), and the exemption was intriguing as they could have continued to add someone.
Not using the exemption, was most likely from upper management, not Mullin, and certainly not Nellie
a proven PF, like KG? – lot’s of folks forget that part of the story … I doubt the TPE was really the motivation (despite Pree’s assertions at the time – see: http://www.goldenstateofmind.com/2007/11/29/65025/032 for some interesting takes on that move ) as much as it was a rationalization after the effort to land KG sank
"It’s frickin’ Sisyphean to be a Warriors Fan."
Skep I’m usually on board w/your old-man-winter stuff, but this is just plain wrong.
If they’d built on the we believe team their costs woulda gone up and the expectations would have been higher. As it was they could just slip quietly back into mediocre mode with no real objections
I love(d) me some JRich. But he was replacable. We went from 42 wins with him, to 48 without him the next year. Unless you think we were going to challenge 72-10, I’m not sure where he hate hate hate comes from. I will always maintain that the Jrich move was a part of going for KG, which at the time was a possibility. So, yeah.
So why didn’t they keep JRich and get a good big man?
How, exactly, do you propose they could have gone about keeping their talent AND adding a good big man?
by Missing Barry on Aug 11, 2010 1:50 PM PDT up reply actions
that’s pretty much the list of star C’s
The irony here is that in this system many PFs will end up playing center, which David Lee will do at times whether we like it or not. Seeming as if you wanted a list, these notable big men are Cs and F/Cs whose value is in IMO better than Biedrins:
Brook Lopez
Dwight Howard
Kendrick Perkins (very much like AB but stronger)
Chris Bosh
Amar’e Stoudemire
Zach Randolph
Carlos Boozer
LaMarcus Aldridge
Tim Duncan
Al Jefferson
Al Horford
Nene
Pau Gasol
Andrew Bynum
And no you didn’t say better in terms of the money they make, you said better.
by Roarrior510 on Aug 11, 2010 12:01 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Kendrick Perkins (very much like AB but stronger)
Kendrick Perkins is not just a better defender, he is a MUCH better defender than Biedrins. That alone puts him far ahead of Andris
by tafkasam on Aug 11, 2010 12:02 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Well, on the one hand, I also think Perkins is a significantly better defender (I don’t think anyone can object to this?)….on the other hand, Biedrins is better at everything else, so I don’t think it’s fair to say that defense alone makes Perkins better….
by Missing Barry on Aug 11, 2010 2:15 PM PDT up reply actions
Well, first off, I was talking about the time frame when JRich was traded, so someone like Brook Lopez doesn’t make inclusion. I debated putting Shaq on the list, though. You could probably add Yao since it was before any of his injury issues looked like they could end his career.
Second, if we’re talking about replacing Biedrins, I’m just not going to consider guys who are really PF’s masquerading as C’s. Sure, Nellie would probably play guys like Bosh, Amare, Boozer, Aldridge at C, and I think in some situations it would work fine. A situation where Stephen Jackson is the PF next to them is not one of those situations. I’m not considering them. They’re guys you pair with Biedrins, not Stephen Jackson/Al Harrington.
Next, I only really care about meaningful improvements. I do believe someone like Perkins is better than Biedrins, but the difference isn’t large enough to worry about. In terms of substantial upgrades…..Howard, of course, Duncan, of course, Gasol, of course……who else? Zach Randolph, Aldridge, Al Jefferson? Laughable. We’re talking about winning basketball here, not guys who shoot a lot, but can’t even score efficiently while not doing much of anything else worthwhile. Perkins, Horford, Nene? Meh, pretty comparable to Biedrins. Call them better, call them worse, I don’t care, I just don’t see it being a meaningful difference. Bynum’s an interesting inclusion on the list. Right now, of course he’s better than Biedrins (though his health is worrisome). In 2007, I probably would have rather had him based on potential. Is there reason to think that back then Bynum would actually be a meaningful improvement over Biedrins over our window of playoff opportunity? I’m not so sure.
by Missing Barry on Aug 11, 2010 2:04 PM PDT up reply actions 5 recs
To each his own...
Zach Randolph, Aldridge, Al Jefferson? Laughable.
That is indeed your opinion. I wouldn’t agree and that should be fine, not something you chuckle at sipping your Latvian Tea. Since of course you choose the stats that YOU deem most important to YOU, then the argument is indeed pointless. Randolph was incredible this year averaging 21 and 12 even with Gasol sucking up some of the boards. Lamarcus Aldridge is a good young player, only a year older than Biedrins but his inside game is more established, and he does have a short range jumper. He also averaged 18 pts and 8 rebs a game. Jefferson’s game has been so up and down but he will definitely put up big numbers in Utah if he can manage to stay healthy, improving upon what he did this year which was only 17 and 9.
You couldn’t get any of these guys for Biedrins straight up. And we weren’t just talking about replacing Biedrins. You had so vehemently put that he was one of the best at his position.
by Roarrior510 on Aug 11, 2010 2:25 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Randolph was incredible this year averaging 21 and 12 even with Gasol sucking up some of the boards.
How many times do we need to say this? It turns out having other good rebounders on your team doesn’t hurt your rebounding.
You talking about “21 and 12” also sort of misses the point. Randolph scored 21 points/game this year with a TS that was hovering around average, probably below average for a center. That’s not helping you win. For his career he is a below-average-efficiency scorer. Given that they had Gasol and Thabeet on the team, it’s not at all clear that Randolph was helping his team by shooting that much – they almost certainly would have been a better team by posting up Gasol more and Randolph less.
Just talking about Randolph’s points misses the fact that he’s not a very good offensive player. He is, in fact, mediocre to bad … but he shoots a lot.
Since of course you choose the stats that YOU deem most important to YOU
Well, I try to choose the stats that best describe winning basketball. Long story short, rate stats are important, scoring is important only in how it helps your teams scoring efficiency, and the effect of your teammates rebounding ability on your own is limited. That Aldridge has more scoring skills than Biedrins isn’t too important when he scores at below average efficiency – if he didn’t take that shot and his team took just the NBA average shot instead, his team would actually be better. He’s also a poor rebounder and not a great defender.
Al Jefferson…..truly awful defense, poor offensive player because efficiency matters. Every shot he takes is a shot someone else can’t take, and every shot he takes he scores a below average amount of points on. All he does is rebound, and while he does that fairly well, he doesn’t do it as well as Andris. Zach Randolph is the same player as Jefferson, though this past season he did manage a career high in scoring efficiency to get to average. His scoring helped his team by a little bit, not nearly as much as his volume suggests, though. Again, if you’re interested in stuff that has been shown to more accurately assess winning basketball, they just don’t compare.
And I don’t call Biedrins one of the best at his position, I think I tend to reserve that for the legitimate superstars – the number of which I can count on one hand, at C. I consistently call Biedrins a solid starter/role player.
by Missing Barry on Aug 11, 2010 2:48 PM PDT up reply actions
And where is your basis for Andris Biedrins contributing to winning basketball? I believe your stance has always been Biedrins is one of the better Centers in the league. But if you want barrage me with TS so be it. I’m not a Zach Randolph fan by any means, but he could have packed it in and called it a career. Instead he put in the work to have a fine season, whether you think so or not. His PER was 19th in the entire league. I understand your affinity for the TS% you hold dear, but really, the guys that lead in this category, Oberto, Bill Walker, Greg Oden, Batum, Tyson Chandler, Amir Johnson?? You’re right then. League poster boys.
PER is a really stupid stat.
As has been demonstrated, if you hit 2-pt shots at something like a 33% clip, your PER goes up with every shot you take. It rewards player, then, for taking bad shots.
The point in talking about TS% is that it helps you have a more complete understanding of a player’s scoring. Biedrins does not score a lot (although he usually scores at a reasonable rate) but he scores very efficiently. Nobody is saying that it alone makes Biedrins better than somebody else, but shooting at a very high efficiency correlates very well with winning games.
The other thing that Biedrins does which contributes to winning basketball is rebound at an elite level. I don’t know why casual fans don’t understand that, no, really, grabbing two more rebounds in 36 minutes makes a real difference. Biedrins, when healthy, rebounds at an elite level.
According to your stat tree there is a direct correlation between PER and say VA, Value Added and Estimated Wins Added. But my guess these aren’t important to you either. What I see is that the very best players lead the league in these categories. I agree that the best tan in the league can rebound, but to be a solid center why is it wrong to expect more.
PER does correlate with good players – the problem is, correlation != causation. Basically, PER correlates with good players because it’s a usage stat. The best players tend to get the highest usage (for obvious reasons). So it’s really just a proxy for being good, and doesn’t tell us enough about how good an individual really is, beyond their usage. Ronaldinho described the main problem – it doesn’t do an adequate job assessing efficiency, and just gives guys credit for shooting a lot. So when you get guys that shoot a lot but do so inefficiently, that’s when you’re going to see problems. Also, like other stats, poor defenders will be overvalued. Guys like Randolph and Jefferson fit those bills perfectly. A guy like Biedrins is going to be undervalued because it doesn’t evaluate efficiency well enough. But yes, when it tells you Lebron is the best player in the league – it is right, he is the best player in the league….but that doesn’t make it a good tool.
but to be a solid center why is it wrong to expect more.
No problem with this, I want more than just rebounding, too. I guess my problem is while we all see Biedrins limits as an offensive player easily – he’s still one of the better passing C’s out there, AND he scores more (and more efficiently) than the average C. So he does give us more than just rebounding. So I legitimately don’t understand why we make a big deal out of his limitations when he still manages to outperform his peers.
by Missing Barry on Aug 11, 2010 4:07 PM PDT up reply actions
So I legitimately don’t understand why we make a big deal out of his limitations when he still manages to outperform his peers.
And I respectfully argue, that he has not.
What are his limitations, and how have they held him back from outperforming his peers, then? I’m going to generalize an opinion here, so please tell me if it does not represent yours, but my impression is the biggest knock on Biedrins is his lack of ability when it comes to scoring – whether you’re talking about not having a jumpshot, not being able to create his own shot, FT shooting, whatever. So what I just don’t understand is why those are meaningful knocks on him even though he scores more than his peers, that is, he scores more than average for the C position (and does so efficiently)?
by Missing Barry on Aug 11, 2010 4:20 PM PDT up reply actions
Are his limitations hurting the team?
If they aren’t then he’s an above average role player. If Biedrins is on the team next year, I feel confident that he will be back to good form (pending better free throw shooting). I feel especially confident, because his role will be what he’s good at. He won’t be asked to create his own shot down low (face up, back to basket, etc). With the addition of David Lee, he doesn’t need to be a scoring big man. So even though stats show he is very efficient, they don’t show anything about how his game effects the other 4 players on the court and how the offense is run.
Serving it up night in and night out -Steph "The Chef" Curry
by dont_stop_believin' on Aug 15, 2010 1:32 AM PDT up reply actions
his role will be what he’s good at
That. Rebounds plus reliable point guard plus getting his points should equal a very good year for him and for us.
Baseball is a chamber orchestra. Football is a marching band. Basketball is a modern quintet. jazz, rock, hiphop, pop/ all about the beat./ still my revolution not/ til you dance through it.
but to be a solid center why is it wrong to expect more.
Sure. Expect more from all of your players. There are very few players who, as a fan, you don’t want to “Expect more” from.
Even Biedrins’ biggest fans agree there are areas they’d like to see him improve (such as his one-on-one defense against larger players).
The point is that when you evaluate centers correctly (that is, you appreciate the context of their scoring, and value things like steals, turnovers, etc) correctly, then Biedrins, when healthy, is one of the better starting centers in the league.
Notice that I didn’t say “one of the best.” There are guys who are clearly better than him. But he’s better than most.
I suspect by “solid” you mean “scores a lot” but, of course, Biedrins already scores more than the average center, per minute.
If there was one skill
I’d like AB to work on, it would be rapid and accurate distance outlet passing off of defensive rebounds. It’s very specific, a trainable/learnable skill, and something he can improve that not only improves his own game, but will have a significantly positive impact on team efficiency.
Baseball is a chamber orchestra. Football is a marching band. Basketball is a modern quintet. jazz, rock, hiphop, pop/ all about the beat./ still my revolution not/ til you dance through it.
Also,
pitching some baseballs for dunks make the crowd value you a LOT more. It’s the spectacular kind of play that, when fans expect you to do it, and you do it consistently, makes you a favorite by demonstrating those “little things” we often don’t notice.
Baseball is a chamber orchestra. Football is a marching band. Basketball is a modern quintet. jazz, rock, hiphop, pop/ all about the beat./ still my revolution not/ til you dance through it.
And where is your basis for Andris Biedrins contributing to winning basketball?
He scores at a higher rate than the average C, and does it at a high efficiency. He’s an excellent rebounder. He’s a good passer. He limits turnovers. He’s an active off ball defener (one of the top C’s in steals, and pretty average in blocking shots), and he has the quickness to play away from the basket better than most C’s defensively. His only actual weakness is on ball post D, and he’s not any worse at that than bums like Jefferson and Randolph (I’d probably say he’s better). Those are things that help win basketball games.
You seem to be having a misunderstanding for TS%. At the end of the day, what we care about is how many points a team scores in the possessions they get (and how an individual contributes to that). It’s really not a hard concept – every shot a player takes is one his teammates can’t take. So if you take a shot, you have to compare it to the shot that would have been taken by a teammate. Guys with good efficiency improve their teams overall scoring when they shoot, guys with bad efficiency hurt their teams overall scoring when they shoot (since the team could have used that possession to take a better shot instead). That’s why we look at it.
I understand your affinity for the TS% you hold dear, but really, the guys that lead in this category, Oberto, Bill Walker, Greg Oden, Batum, Tyson Chandler, Amir Johnson?? You’re right then. League poster boys.
You’re doing it wrong.
by Missing Barry on Aug 11, 2010 3:39 PM PDT up reply actions
By definition, the TS% is what a player’s shooting percentage would be if we accounted for free throws and 3-pointers. It seems to me you are over valuing it out of context to glorify a point. But be that as it may, if it is indeed that valuable to your discussion, I just presented the list of valuable players that lead the league in this statistic. And as it is, Steve Nash actually has the same TS% as Amar’e and Corey Maggette. That’s awesome.
By definition, the TS% is what a player’s shooting percentage would be if we accounted for free throws and 3-pointers.
Yes, the concept is to treat all possessions equally. If you get fouled and shoot 2 FT’s, that uses up 1 possession the same as taking a 2 point shot the same as taking a 3 point shot. So TS% is the number of total points you score (be it a FT, 2 pointer, or 3 pointer) divided by the number of possessions you shoot (and the possessions are an estimate since official scoring doesn’t actually keep track of possessions). Conceptually, it’s exactly what we’re interested in. Then it presents it as the equivalent of the FG% of a player who only took 2 point shots.
I just presented the list of valuable players that lead the league in this statistic
Yes, you presented a list of the guys that finished at the top. It appeared to me you presented that list in a “look, these guys aren’t great (or even good) players but lead the league in this statistic so cleary it sucks” kind of way. The statistic isn’t meant to be an end all, be all, and conceptually it makes no sense to use it that way. It adds context to scoring numbers to tell you how valuable those shots were for the teams overall scoring. It is what it is.
by Missing Barry on Aug 11, 2010 4:31 PM PDT up reply actions
MB with some of the best analysis I've seen on GSOM
“The Warriors would be better with Howard, Duncan or Gasol in Biedrins place.”
New candidate for mod!
his one team that beat the #1 seed in the West a few years ago with Biedrins as its only legitimate big man on the entire roster
Biedrins definitely played his part highlighted in Games 3 and 6, both victories. One could argue since both games were blowouts and no other centers were used, that Biedrins stats included a large portion of garbage time, but for the sake of argument ie can let that go. But forcing the Mavericks to play small ball, shooting the daylights out with Baron, Stack, JRich, and Barnes was the dominating factor in the series, along with the #1 Seed’s lack of heart.
Game 1: 2 pts, 1 reb, 1 blk
Game 2: 4 pts, 2 reb
Game 3: 10 pts 10 rebs
Game 4: 4 pts, 4 rebs
Game 5: 8 pts, 2 rebs
Game 6: 12 pts, 12 rebs
by Roarrior510 on Aug 11, 2010 11:43 AM PDT up reply actions
And I wouldn’t try to argue Biedrins was a dominating factor in the series or anything, just that when the closest thing (other than Andris) you have to a big man is Stephen Jackson or Al Harrington, well, Biedrins definitely has some sort of role. The point is still that good teams have a role for players like Biedrins, and even open starting spots (especially at C, the hardest position to fill). Not to carry the team, but to be a role player.
by Missing Barry on Aug 11, 2010 2:18 PM PDT up reply actions
Is he paid to be a role player?
I agree he’s definitely useful, but considering all his limitations, is he worth it as opposed to say an MLE like Gortat
by tafkasam on Aug 11, 2010 11:59 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
If you think you can consistently find big men as good as Gortat seems to be to take the MLE, by all means, more power to you. I think I could be ok with that. I’m not sure that’s a realistic option. And really, Biedrins is making under $3M more than Gortat this year, and Gortat’s contract escalates in value while Biedrins is fixed. I very much believe Biedrins pay is not only in line with the role player he is, but actually a good value.
by Missing Barry on Aug 11, 2010 2:11 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Yeah
Thats my thing, I’m not sure if it is possible, but I know in current salary structure, if the Warriors are unwilling to go into the luxury tax, his contract is kind of an albatross as he’s paid to be more impactful than he is.
I know what Biedrins does and what he doesn’t do. He’s a role player. Role players shouldn’t make more then the MLE if you plan to stay out of luxury tax AND win. A better allocation of money is to pay 2 or 3 legitimate all star players near to max level money and surround the roster. You won’t get a center who is AS good a role player as Biedrins but the team as a whole will be stronger, as the model of five 8-12 million dollar players (detroit) hasn’t proven to be as effective as the model of 2 max level and mle’s and lower.
Then again, unless your the Spurs and incredibly well managed, most everyone goes into the luxury tax. I love Lamar Odom for example, but his old contract on Warriors would be terrible as he would never produce at that level but to the Lakers, it’s not as big a deal as he’s a very valuable player even if overpaid and essentially doing what Biedrins does (more skilled but ultimately a high end role player, who has his occasional game)
as he’s paid to be more impactful than he is.
Role players shouldn’t make more then the MLE if you plan to stay out of luxury tax AND win
Unless it’s a center. I absolutely agree in the case of a perimeter player- if you’re going serviceable, you go out and get Matt Barnes or Ramon Sessiones and pay them the MLE. Unfortunately, centers typically get paid a lot more more than that. You don’t usually get Gortat or Marc Gasol at the MLE or lower- Marc Gasol might have the best value contract in the whole NBA. You usually get Darko Milicic or Channing Frye at $5 M per year, or Drew Gooden at $6 M, as a couple of recent examples.
Sick of fighting with my computer
by Reverend_Randy on Aug 11, 2010 5:20 PM PDT up reply actions
Role players shouldn’t make more then the MLE if you plan to stay out of luxury tax AND win.
A better allocation of money is to pay 2 or 3 legitimate all star players near to max level money and surround the roster.
Well, certainly, Miami looks like the team to beat this year, which argues for the latter strategy. Except that they wouldn’t be the team to beat if they had Amare’s, Joe Johnson, and Carmelo Anthony and surrounded them with MLE and minumum guys.
What I think you’ll see is that it’s not possible to build a team, most of the time, by starting with multiple all-stars. Miami is the exception because Wade, LeBron, and Bosh made a plan … but ask New York – trying to do that isn’t a real strategy. Most of the time, a core of MLE players is not going to be enough to attract a top free agent.
Instead, if you look at what Boston, Los Angeles, and Miami did building their title teams, they had a solid core of players but they also had flexibility to move players to acquire an additional superstar. But, again, why did KG want to go to Boston and not to Golden State?
I think it’s because he saw that the core of players they would have, after the trade, was more appealing. Having players like Biedrins makes you more appealing to free agents (don’t you think David Lee is glad that he’s not going to be defending opposing centers?)
by Ronaldinho on Aug 11, 2010 6:24 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
And honestly, I don’t understand the negativity about Biedrins limitations. We all know he has limitations (like not being able to create his own shot), but the great thing is, Biedrins knows them, too! He plays to his strengths and hides his weaknesses. Is it really a big deal that he can’t create his own shot when 1.) he doesn’t try, which means he’s not forcing bad shots or committing turnovers trying to do something he doesn’t do well and 2.) he still manages to score more than the average C without creating his own shot?
by Missing Barry on Aug 11, 2010 2:20 PM PDT up reply actions
he still manages to score more than the average C without creating his own shot
He didn’t last year which speaks to how dependent he is on the team to create, ultimately meaning he’s not that special.
He didn't last year
because he was injured the whole time! Last year is absolutely meaningless on all levels. He wasn’t hitting the offensive glass as hard because he was hurt and didn’t want to go to the free throw line. He wasn’t hitting the offensive glass, so he wasn’t getting his put backs.
how dependent he is on the team to create, ultimately meaning he’s not that special.
Go look at 08-09. Look at his numbers and look at who was passing him the ball. His passing situation in 09-10 was at worst, slightly worse, but his scoring was crap. I think it’s more reasonable to attribute his drop off in performance to his bad injury than to Monta Ellis’ poor passing.
Sick of fighting with my computer
by Reverend_Randy on Aug 11, 2010 5:25 PM PDT up reply actions 4 recs
And honestly, I don’t understand the negativity about Biedrins limitations.
the negativity of it is that we don’t get the things from him that a true center should provide, no ruling the paint, no intimidator, no post up game when we need it, no bull in the china shop when the other team is tired and vulnerable , etc. If we don’t get it from the center then who’s gonna do it? A smaller guy can do all the finesse stuff and play pick and roll with Binky from the 4 spot so wasting the center spot on another finesse guy is not good composition. Look how Boston folded in game 7 when Perkins went down?
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Aug 11, 2010 9:19 PM PDT up reply actions
no ruling the paint, no intimidator
Yawn. Just hot words that don’t mean all that much. If you want to talk about the impact a Ben Wallace (at his peak) type defensive C has on the game, sure, that would be a great asset to have. There aren’t many of those out there.
no post up game when we need it
I find this to be a really, really annoying argument. Yes, a post up game is valuable, no Biedrins doesn’t have one. But do you realize how many C’s with legitimate post up games exist? We don’t have one, but neither do most other teams!
If we don’t get it from the center then who’s gonna do it?
Most teams get it from their PF. We have Brandan Wright and David Lee now. So yeah, I think we’re fine in that department.
Look how Boston folded in game 7 when Perkins went down?
What’s your point? That Rasheed and Davis suck at rebounding and Perkins doesn’t? That Perkins has no post game of his own? That Perkins going down for the Celtics would be a lot like Biedrins going down for us, since they’re pretty similar players?
by Missing Barry on Aug 12, 2010 7:40 AM PDT up reply actions
he’s not forcing bad shots or committing turnovers trying to do something he doesn’t do well
Right, we have the fun n’ gun backcourt to do that for us (chanelling my inner Skep).
But seriously, who cares if he can create his own shot? It would be nice if he developed a couple go to post moves, but isn’t it way more important that he continue to be effective on the pick and roll, aggressive on putbacks, and defensively stout? Especially now, with an offense-centric PF, Biedrins being able to do anything on offense other than rebound is really inconsequential.
Sittin in my scraper watchin Oakland goin wild, ta-dow!
I’m really not seeing the connection he’s making to draw his conclusion. Amare can shoot a jumper. Biedrins cannot. Biedrins basically needs his baskets to be assisted, and he needs to shoot near the rim. He spent a lot of time showing those points, which is great, but I don’t think anyone would dispute any of those things. Where I get lost is how that connection turns into: Nash wouldn’t make Biedrins a “better” player (better meaning more productive, I assume). The whole point of a pick and roll is the big man rolls to the hoop, and if the defense covers the ball handler, he’s open near the hoop. Biedrins is good at that, Nash is great at that. So why wouldn’t we expect that to lead to more opportunities for Biedrins to be Biedrins – that is, for him to get assisted FG’s (as the author shows is his game) near the hoop?
I guess I just don’t see why the Amare comparison is relevant, especially since the Suns ran sets with Amare as the primary option, and other sets where his jumper is an option. Neither of those will be the case with Biedrins. So…..what does that have to do with whether or not Nash would give Biedrins more opportunities to do what he’s good at? Biedrins won’t be Amare offensively, we know that, but isn’t the point that he’ll be able to be a better version of himself because a guy like Nash will give him more easy opportunities?
As for:
I was shocked that a player, who for the most part did his job with little or no complaint, turned into Stephen Jackson, another franchise cornerstone-cum-disgruntled vet in the matter of a few seasons.
…really? He’s turned into a disgruntled vet who’s actively seeking to get traded? That really doesn’t sound like an accurate take on the following to me:
They actually wanted to trade me after the last season. Not this one, but the last, which was the best of my career, but it didn’t go through. So, I guess, if they trade me, there could be some nice changes involved, maybe I’ll be on a better team, with better teamwork. When the rumors came out last year about me going to Phoenix, I would’ve loved to play with Steve Nash. Also, the Phoenix team, the city, it was all fun to think about. With a point guard like that, the game is different.
I do consider myself lucky. I consider myself lucky, because of the contract I have received. I feel I have had a successful career so far and individually I have reached a lot of goals that I have worked for my whole life. If we talk about the team, I’m lucky as well. If another team drafted me, maybe I would have never gotten a chance to prove myself and to show my abilities. You never know, maybe another team would have traded me, maybe I would have been out of the league in three years. Our team had faith in me, I didn’t play for two years, they kept me and I will be forever grateful for it to them.
I also object to this:
But I am comparing the two given that Biedrins, to an extent, was treated as a cornerstone piece to the Warriors franchise (much the way Amar’e is valued now with the Knicks) and, more importantly because him and Amar’e play the same if not similar positions. I don’t think it’s wrong to compare to the two given that Biedrins’ thinks his offense will improve with Nash.
Comparing them is fine, and I think his conclusion is sound – Biedrins won’t be Amare, but they’re both treated as a franchise cornerstone? Amare is making what, $100M over 5 years (so ~$20M a year on average)? Biedrins got a 5 year $45M contract. $9M to a C is not a “franchise cornerstone”. It’s paying for a starter, which is of course what Biedrins is – a solid starter. Amare is being paid over double what Biedrins is!
by Missing Barry on Aug 11, 2010 9:50 AM PDT reply actions 8 recs
Agreed ...
Amare’ and Biedrins’ games are so different that comparing things like their percentage of assisted FGs doesn’t make any sense.
Comparison of skills
I am in agreement that I don’t want my big man standing outside jacking up shots, like Channing Frye. That bothers the hell out of me. But, I think that the ability for your big man to do that can possibly provide more offensive options, i.e. not just pick and roll but pick and pops.
Do I expect Biedrins to shoot jump shots? No way. I don’t think I implied that anywhere.
But, what you think Biedrins is good at, however, is something I think any NBA player better be good at, which is converting point blank range shots. What you think Biedrins is great at, is what I think is ultimately his limitation. Biedrins efficiency (TS%) doesn’t tell the tale of his reliability of others to put him in the right position. That’s what PGs are supposed to do of course. But saying you get 5 touches a game and you make all 5, off alleyoops per se, doesn’t say enough about what he could do more of.
He’s developed a few nice baby hooks, which is impressive and shocked me actually. But I also think that expanding those aspects of his ‘inside’ game, which he can initiate himself, would be tremendous not just for himself for the team as it might take pressure off others to necessarily create for him… or heck, maybe even lead to some double teams and kick outs to open shooters.
by dj fuzzylogic on Aug 11, 2010 11:50 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Yes I agree with all of that, though I will note there is a definitely range of skills among even NBA players in terms of converting point blank range shots, and Biedrins is good at not only converting those shots, but getting himself a high volume of those shots from putbacks, from having great hands to catch the ball, from taking good angles to open up passing lanes, etc.
I guess my take from the article was it was asking the question whether a play like Nash would help Biedrins be more productive, and I guess I don’t really think what we’re discussing (and what was discussed in the article) does much to address that – which is fine, it was still an interesting article and had some good points, just points I thought were mostly unrelated to that question. Maybe when you say:
But, this is to temper any ideas that hooking up with Nash would necessarily make a player like Biedrins any more of an offensive threat given how much more skilled Amar’e is and, more importantly, how less skilled Biedrins is
I’m interpretting it differently than you intended? Basically, my thoughts are Biedrins game won’t change at all with a guy like Nash – he’ll still do exactly what he does now, but Nash will give him more offensive opportunities since he’s such a great player and passer. So Biedrins won’t change at all, but he will get more good looks, which in my eyes makes him more productive (which I equate to “better”). I could see how you might conclude that he won’t be any better in that he won’t do anything differently, though – he won’t magically start hitting jumpers or become a post threat or anything just because of Nash’s presence.
by Missing Barry on Aug 11, 2010 2:30 PM PDT up reply actions
Biedrins is good at not only converting those shots, but getting himself a high volume of those shots from putbacks, from having great hands to catch the ball, from taking good angles to open up passing lanes, etc.
He actually really isn’t. At most he’s averaged 9 shots a game, his best season where he converted almost 6 of those. So efficiently yes, and effective if it were in the ‘high volume’ that you speak of. But even in his best year he didnt average more than 10 shots. You’re prolly going to argue about how you don’t want him taking more shots than that which is understandable or how everyone else takes away his scoring opportunities, which is also a valid point. But his efficiency isn’t really that effective, in small volumes. And if he’s just getting put backs and dunks and shots right at the basket, what is happening the other 42% of the time he doesnt make them?
Maybe when I said “high volume” it was misleading. I’ll just be more specific to let people know exactly where I stand on that. In 2008-2009, the league average for C’s was 13.6 points per 40 minutes on 55.8% TS%. Biedrins scored 15.9 points per 40 minutes on 58.5% TS%. In 07-08, it was 12.5 and 54.7%. Biedrins was at 15.3 points and 63.9% TS%. We know Biedrins basically scores all of his baskets on those putbacks and catch and finishes. So while he’s nowhere near superstar territory or anything, he was getting himself enough shots to score more than his positions average on just those.
by Missing Barry on Aug 11, 2010 2:58 PM PDT up reply actions
Why 10 shots?
What’s relevant about 10 shots, other than the fact that it’s how many fingers you have? Does something magically happen where if you take more than ten shots a game, you are suddenly helping your team win in a way that you weren’t when you were taking 9 shots?
Does something magically happen where if you take more than ten shots a game
yeah, you grow more fingers.
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Aug 11, 2010 3:27 PM PDT up reply actions
Agreed
I think Biedrins hands and hustle on the offensive boards is pretty amazing given how a lot of the other Warriors practically fear rebounding or trying to rebound. His put backs on the offensive end are things that other Warriors don’t do enough and that was one thing that I have grown to admire about him over the past two seasons.
And I would agree with you that Biedrins prob. won’t do anything crazy with Nash or the Suns system. But I wouldn’t expect to see a huge spike in his offensive production which I wonder if that’s what Biedrins was suggesting (though he never mentions to what extent he thinks this ‘difference’ is). I imagine a few more dunks here and there. But I still think (and am cautiously hopeful) that Biedrins could do a little more ‘on his own.’ Maybe the pick and roll/pick and pop between David Lee will end all this discussion of what Biedrins can or can’t do.
by dj fuzzylogic on Aug 11, 2010 2:50 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
I think that’s a reasonable take on things. I thought I was seeing some stuff for Biedrins in the last season or two, as well – I definitely remember us calling some stuff specifically for him to create at the start of last year, but once he got hurt it basically turned it into a lost season. It would be nice if he could create his own shot from time to time.
by Missing Barry on Aug 11, 2010 3:03 PM PDT up reply actions
But, what you think Biedrins is good at, however, is something I think any NBA player better be good at, which is converting point blank range shots.
It turns out we have a lot of evidence about what NBA centers can do when shooting point-blank shots.
And it turns out that Biedrins is – by the standards of NBA centers – really, really good at it. I know it’s one of those things which “any NBA player better be good at,” and that makes it hard to credit him properly for it.
But he’s actually one of the best in the game at it. He is significantly better than your average NBA center at it.
Ha, I tend to think when we normal mortals think about it, it’s something along the lines of “how do you miss a shot at the rim when you’re 7 feet tall?!” Something that gets lost in the mix – “how do you finish a shot at the rim when there’s someone 7 feet tall trying to swat it?!”…..
by Missing Barry on Aug 11, 2010 2:50 PM PDT up reply actions
Yea, big men are ridiculously bad at converting close shots
Chris Hunter being the perfect example of somebody who hasn’t learned to the protect the ball going up, can’t convert two foot drop steps with authority or at all with anyone 3 feet near him, and can’t catch passes as if he inherited Erick Dampier’s spirit.
But, Biedrins getting paid 9 million, I would hope that he could do those things that a D-League call up can’t do.
Slight tangent, but I guess I’m in the camp that if basketball is your profession (and this goes for everyone, not just Biedrins) you should be able to do a few of things. But I bet if I was 7 feet tall, I imagine I might be pretty uncoordinated.
by dj fuzzylogic on Aug 11, 2010 2:54 PM PDT up reply actions
But, Biedrins getting paid 9 million, I would hope that he could do those things that a D-League call up can’t do.
And, indeed, he can.
But here’s the thing – Biedrins is so good at scoring point blank that merely saying that he’s better at it than Chris Hunter completely misses the point.
He is better at it than the vast majority of people who have ever started for an NBA team.
He is really, really, really good at it. Not “better than a d-leaguer.” More like: better than almost everyone who’s ever played in the NBA.
by Ronaldinho on Aug 11, 2010 3:18 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Curry will be an elite point guard this coming year don't you think.
According to Hoopsstats.com Curry finished last season as a NBA top 10 Point Guard. Then we look at his off season where Coach K has nothing but praise for his Team USA defense. Curry will be an Elite point guard Biedrins…you’re just frustrated with being forced to play through injury and to free throws shoot underhanded. I get that…but wanting an elite point guard??? we have that big guy.
Curry will be an Elite point guard Biedrins…you’re just frustrated with being forced to play through injury and to free throws shoot underhanded. I get that…but wanting an elite point guard??? we have that big guy.
He didn’t say anything about not wanting to play with Binky. He was dealing with the past not the future. This interview was about Dre’s season not about the Warriors future so don’t read more into it than is there.
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Aug 11, 2010 10:53 AM PDT up reply actions
Just saying there were rumors he was gonna be traded to Phoenix last year and his response was that he would love to play with Nash doesn’t mean he’s dissing Curry. Relax. I also think the Curry/Biedrins connection should be nice this year (though we’ll probably go Curry/Lee more often).
by Missing Barry on Aug 11, 2010 10:57 AM PDT up reply actions
I think Curry can be an elite basketball player
But I still question whether he’ll be an elite playmaking PG. I can’t see him as a 10 assist style PG who makes mediocre offensive players like Biedrins better. I doubt he’ll ever reach Baron;s playmaking ability
That said, he does something better than every PG in nba. Shoot and score.
Ah frag it!!
let’s just trade him for another guard. After all 7 footer are real easy to come by.
And I loved it when we were the 6’9" and under “NBA” team.
"If God made us in his image then he must be dumb too, and a little ugly on the side."
Frank Zappa
Do the GSoM Mod’s outside of Jae just have a ridiculous hatred of Biedrins, Ellis, and unbelievable love for Nellie, and believe nothing Nellie can do is wrong?
"Everybody loves Basketball-Reference.com. Except the Kobe fans".- DubsFan408
by GovernorStephCurry on Aug 11, 2010 11:18 AM PDT reply actions
Biedrins and Ellis should have an undying love for Nellie
Without him they are not $120 mil the richer
Nellie does seem to really not get along with
certain players. Often times I think Nellie is right and should push his players to play differently. Recently however Barnes claimed that Nellie did not like him, yet Barnes is a good player. Biedrins as flawed as he is, is our best center on the team, I sort of understand Biedrins gripes but they seem pretty trivial considering how much money the guy makes.
by brutusbrutus on Aug 11, 2010 12:03 PM PDT up reply actions
sort of understand Biedrins gripes but they seem pretty trivial considering how much money the guy makes.
Thats my thing. For second highest paid player last year, he acts like a DLeague call up in terms of leadership, personality and most importantly ownership of the team.
I expect way more out of a ‘leader’. Not a guy who showed up looking slow and fake tanned to death.
by tafkasam on Aug 11, 2010 12:05 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Eh, trying to analyze a guys impact on things like leadership and his personality and stuff has always been a pet peeve of mine, simply because of how little we really know about these guys, about what they do together, about their relationships, the locker room dynamics, etc. And even when we do know to some degree, do we have any idea what the effect of it is? Doesn’t seem likely to me. Meh.
What I’d really like to point out, though, is that Maggette was paid more than Biedrins, and I would argue it’s probably fair to say Jack was, too (he wasn’t being paid more than Biedrins last year, but he has an escalating contract where his average value was higher, I believe – at least on the extension part of the deal). He really doesn’t make all that much money by NBA standards.
by Missing Barry on Aug 11, 2010 2:37 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
objection
Premise that Barnes is a good player. Nice try, but no. He is a streaky thug who routinely gets lit up in the SF Pro Am league. The Nelson drive and dish system earned him a contract, any ungrateful claim from him should be brushed aside accordingly.
RUN LEEMC
No, you are wrong.
Barnes wp48 this past year was very good. Better than Kobe Bryant who i bet you think is the “best player in the NBA”.
"Everybody loves Basketball-Reference.com. Except the Kobe fans".- DubsFan408
by GovernorStephCurry on Aug 11, 2010 3:33 PM PDT up reply actions
Correction
Barnes can thank Nellie AND D Howard for his new contract
RUN LEEMC
Barnes has become a good player.
He just had a career year. If he can keep that going, he’s indisputably a good player.
He’s better than a lot of guys you think are better than him if you haven’t been paying attention.
Jackson was the key player
the fans who refer to previous peak seasons of both Ellis and Biedrins often bring up Davis’ name. Yet Davis himself has yet to approach his production when Jackson was his co-lead. In most statistical categories Biedrins’ production increased in the season after Davis left, which was Jackson’s big year as the primary play maker. It seems likely that Ellis could also have thrived if he’d been healthy that year [not necessarily leading to a winning season for the team, of course, and in retrospect the losses resulted in drafting Curry]. Jackson and Biedrins appeared to have excellent chemistry on the court, readily able to find each other to set screens or pass off. From the circumstantial evidence, Davis’ departure might have affected Harrington the most. Harrington’s forced departure, combined with Ellis’ self-destruction, led to a mini-catastrophe cascade as Mullin attempted to find alternatives at guard like M.Williams and Crawfor-. Those who think Ellis and Biedrins will significantly re-make their offensive games with Lee and Curry becoming the leaders might be applying more hope and faith rather than objectivity. With the other options on the court, Biedrins could see very little of the ball on offense when Lee is in the game.
Music is the Healing Force of the Universe (a.ayler)
Good point about Jack – I think he and Biedrins worked nicely together, too. As for Biedrins now, I dunno, Lee is also a good passer and Curry is coming into his own, I could see it working well for Biedrins (in his usual role player role), especially if defenses have to key in on Curry/Lee.
by Missing Barry on Aug 11, 2010 3:44 PM PDT up reply actions
Interesting
but this time I completely disagree regarding Jack. I’m going to put up the top-6 playoff wp48s for 3 teams. No names, no team names, and see if we can evaluate how they would do against each other. The rules are simple – total the wp48 for the top six players on a team by minutes played. The combined wp48 of the top 3 will determine most playoff series success, but should not exceed 75% of the total. Your top player should be as close to 30% of the total you can get.
If we can do that, we’ll look at who the teams and players are, and in a better position to objectively value player contribution. You (the collective you) with me so far? Good.
246 289 350
143 172 212
108 113 126
83 64 69 ————————————-
-5 33 -76
-81 -10 -86
-
494 661 457
T1 T2 T3
497 574 688 TOTAL TOP 3
1.006 0.868 1.505 TOP 3%
0.787 0.697 1.230 TOP 2 %
0.498 0.437 0.766 TOP 1 %
Kind of interesting – Team 3 has the best top 3 by far, but they are the only contributors. The bottom 3 are not only below average, they actually hurt the team on the floor – a lot. If they had average production, in those positions, they’d clearly be the best team.
Team 2 isn’t as good at the top, but by having fewer players who hurt you, they have a much higher total than either team 1 or team 3. And their percentages for their top players correspond better to the distribution of the model we’re looking at than either of the others.
Team 1 is looks a bit better than team 3 overall because they don’t have as many problems with second half of their top-6.
So for a series between teams 1 and 3, I’m going to go with 3 because their top 3 production is crushingly better than team 1 and the overall difference is relatively close. If you’re enough better, you can win 3 on 6, and in this case the difference is enough to overcome the overall wp48 deficit team 3 has.
Team 2 is much harder for Team 3 to beat over a series. Nearly impossible, actually. They’re much better than team 1 across the board, they have the right balance, and they lack the negative production of three players that team 3 has. I expect if these teams play a series, team 3 will be crushed. It’s a tragedy that the top two players on that team – who are good enough, in this limited case, to be the top two on a championship team, are saddled with three players who actually hurt them to the point it’s like giving the other team a top player.
Anyway…. so if team 3 beats team 1 in the playoffs, it will be exciting and it sure will look like an upset. But if they run into team 2 in the next round, they’ll be crushed.
That’s exactly what happened with We Believe, because those are the playoff numbers for Dallas, Utah, and the Warriors, respectively.
For the Warriors, the positive guys should be the heros – the negative guys should be the goats. They literally lost the Utah series. So who was who, on that Warriors team?
Baron – 350
AB – 212
Matt – 126
Al – -69
Jack – -76
Monta – -86
We can look at pure numbers with some simple rules, and describe outcomes without factoring in coaching, defense, streaks, heart, attitude, or anything else – they all show up in the wash. Monta is better than that, now – he’s kinda neutral to wins. So is Jack, by the way. Baron is much worse, but he was absolutely astonishing for that run. AB was only slightly better than last year, and was the second most productive player on the team.
What we see is one way of describing what happened, but it’s not always the best way.
Baseball is a chamber orchestra. Football is a marching band. Basketball is a modern quintet. jazz, rock, hiphop, pop/ all about the beat./ still my revolution not/ til you dance through it.
by his individual numbers
Jackson has always been an easy mark to criticize—how much does his contribution to team d show up in those stats? He might be an x-factor, a catalyst that helps the whole cohere, not necessarily become more than the sum of its parts but to optimize the effect of that sum. Granted, there’s only circumstantial/anecdotal evidence, in the form of how well Davis and Biedrins in particular did with him on the floor. The best two seasons the team has had in the past decade combined Davis and Jackson as the co-leads, and the stats can’t alter that.
Music is the Healing Force of the Universe (a.ayler)
Nor can they
alter the fact that for both of those years Biedrens was either first or second on the team in wp48, with values in the “very good” to OMG range. In the two years since AB is still in the very good range both years – Jack is still in the non-entity to liability range. But that’s beside the point.
I don’t mean to point a finger at any of the three specifically. I can’t tell you what any of their individual numbers are. All three of them are specialists – they are very effective at scoring points. Not efficient – effective. And you definitely need that. But you don’t need that much of it, and you don’t need it going negative.
What the numbers show to me is that we could have afforded one negative-number player, maybe, but certainly not 3. A coach who played those players those minutes has more to do with it than any of the players do. Baron leaving hurt us a lot – Jack not so much in terms of floor production, though it clearly did in other ways. Baron leaving blew up the team, imo, and everything since has been damage control until this summer.
So of the three, who have similar roles and effects on a team even though they all have different games, we are now left with one. Of the three, Monta is historically the most likely to be at least marginally efficient – and he can be very efficient playing with Beans.
He’s the only one of the three to have demonstrated that. He’s the youngest. He’s already shown himself the best of the three at being an effective scorer. And he’s shown far and away the least ego. Did I mention he’s the youngest?
The limitation of statistics is that they measure efficiency, not effectiveness. It can be argued that a Ron Ron knee in Ray Allen’s thigh cost the Celtics a finals game, because Allen’s shooting cratered after it. That showed up as a cost (foul) but… cost-effective if you measured it. You can’t, but if it happens often enough you don’t worry about it and just pay the man. Of those 3 shooters, I believe that at this point Monta is the best choice right now. Of all players with major floor time on We Believe, Biedrens was the most productive. So we come out of the wreckage with both kinds of pieces – effective and efficient. They compliment each other because they are different. Monta and Jack are in many ways the same for team mechanics. And somehow we add four players that fit with them in one year, who are all both efficient and effective. The trick is in knowing who you have, and to stop changing it now save for a third big and backup point.
In the playoffs that year, according to the numbers, if we replace Jack with dLee, we give the Lakers a serious run, with a good chance of winning the whole thing. That’s an estimated value, but I have no reason to disbelieve it. Are his intangibles worth that?
Baseball is a chamber orchestra. Football is a marching band. Basketball is a modern quintet. jazz, rock, hiphop, pop/ all about the beat./ still my revolution not/ til you dance through it.
whoops
sorry, Spurs. Been thinking to much about the Lakers and how to beat them
Baseball is a chamber orchestra. Football is a marching band. Basketball is a modern quintet. jazz, rock, hiphop, pop/ all about the beat./ still my revolution not/ til you dance through it.
Jackson is a bad player besides his defense.
He is a good defender. WP doesn’t measure this too well. His defense was needed over more offense, but at times his offense was unbearable especially toward the end of the 07-08 year.
Lee at center is an attrocious defender. Lee at power forward is a bad defender. Lee is a superstar player besides his defense. This makes him a great player, but not a superstar.
"Everybody loves Basketball-Reference.com. Except the Kobe fans".- DubsFan408
by GovernorStephCurry on Aug 11, 2010 9:27 PM PDT up reply actions
Right
I think the trick is to have four players among your top 6 per-minute guys who average .200 each over their careers, and do so with consistency rather than large swings. Fill that out with a couple of guys in the career .140-.150 range, or mebbe who can at least reach .150
Guys who average over .200 have a far better chance of reaching .300, and you need someone with that kind of year to win a championship. With a few minor exceptions, most superstars average in the very high 200s. We now have two guys with career average over .200 (.233 & .270), one of them in the high .200s. Right now it is reasonable to project Steph as a .200+ career player – not certain by any means, but reasonable. Both dWright and Ellis have exceeded .180, and Reggie may well be a career .150ish player. If bwright can play serious minutes at his previous level, we’re in pretty good shape. I probably hire Amundson to be safe. And I just maybe stop worrying about a backup point guard. I’ll get into why elsewhere.
Baseball is a chamber orchestra. Football is a marching band. Basketball is a modern quintet. jazz, rock, hiphop, pop/ all about the beat./ still my revolution not/ til you dance through it.
Ok, that does sound like a sound strategy.
But i think you need at least one elite defender in your group of players, who may not have a great WP (Artest this year), and I don’t see us having any great defenders, or even really good defenders besides maybe Dorell Wright.
"Everybody loves Basketball-Reference.com. Except the Kobe fans".- DubsFan408
by GovernorStephCurry on Aug 11, 2010 11:19 PM PDT up reply actions
No argument here on getting one,
and he needs to be a big. He doesn’t need to be a starter, but it would be nice if he can give us 1000 minutes, and we get that player instead of Amundson. who do you see? He can’t cost us anyone other than a corpse or so. Preferably has to be boderline on wp48, because at that level of usage he’s not going to affect the wins totals much unless he’s good enough to start or very very bad.
Baseball is a chamber orchestra. Football is a marching band. Basketball is a modern quintet. jazz, rock, hiphop, pop/ all about the beat./ still my revolution not/ til you dance through it.
Amundson makes soooo much sense for this team.
"Everybody loves Basketball-Reference.com. Except the Kobe fans".- DubsFan408
by GovernorStephCurry on Aug 12, 2010 12:35 AM PDT up reply actions
Jackson was vital to our upset of the Mavs -
- because his defense completely discombobulated Dirk. Dirk can’t handle a physical guy who makes him want to play outside (his natural tendency anyway) but is quick enough to stay with him away from the basket.
So to me, it seems like the idea way to use a player like that is as a bench rotation player/spot starter when you have a favorable matchup. You need to shut down Dirk, or Kobe, or Paul Pierce, you run Jack out there for major minutes.
But somehow Jackson has convinced team after team that he’s a valuable offensive player, and that’s just nonsense.
Jackson is something of a Port Arthur discount version
of ‘Smirk’ Bryant. He’d be mediocre for most of the game but still convert the pressure free throws or three point shots. That’s the inverse of Ellis in a way, who can be spectacular some of the time and make terrible blunders in the clutch, and has yet to really excel at free throws despite all his practice at the stunt shots from off the court. There’s a psychological benefit to the other players, especially to someone like Davis who took on the responsibility of making winning plays, that Jackson, like Bryant, provides with his confidence in making pressure plays and shots.
Music is the Healing Force of the Universe (a.ayler)
Baron leaving blew up the team, imo, and everything since has been damage control until this summer.
This is 100% what I believe. Baron was the centerpiece of the We Believe team. He was the most physically gifted and talented, and the only player capable of carrying a team (when he was motivated, that is). It was really a no-win situation for us, though, because his contract was coming up, he was aging, and he’s always had motivational issues and issues getting along with coaches. There was good reason to think at some point he might go back to the “bad Baron” we saw under Monty, the “bad Baron” that caused the Hornets trade him for a bag of balls, and the “bad Baron” the Clippers signed. So that’s why I emphasize it was a sinking ship and closer to the 04-05 Kings than the 99-00 Kings. I think moving in a different direction was a smart move, and had we not extended Jack or signed Maggette, this franchise would have put itself in the best possible short-run/long-run position as possible.
by Missing Barry on Aug 12, 2010 7:48 AM PDT up reply actions
Kind of
He was always a positive with the W’s, but it declined heavily the more he was asked to do offensively (although it could also be his aging, which, oddly, has coincided with him being asked to do more.) Like most players, he looks a lot better the more he plays with Baron.
Also of note, his +/- numbers in the playoffs for the Warriors and the Bobcats have been attrocious, but that’s mostly due to small sample size, and him playing so many minutes for the losing teams.
Monta Ellis's #1 Fan!!!
Davis' game declined more
than Jackson’s, after they were split up. Biedrins and Jackson had one of their best individual seasons right after Davis exited. It’s easy to dislike Jackson and his low pct. shooting, perhaps not as easy to assess the overall contributions of a player who can take the second lead on offense, defend the perimeter at a couple of different positions, and relishes making pressure plays.
Music is the Healing Force of the Universe (a.ayler)
Davis' game declined more
than Jackson’s, after they were split up. Biedrins and Jackson had one of their best individual seasons right after Davis exited. It’s easy to dislike Jackson and his low pct. shooting, perhaps not as easy to assess the overall contributions of a player who can take the second lead on offense, defend the perimeter at a couple of different positions, and relishes making pressure plays.
Music is the Healing Force of the Universe (a.ayler)
Baron – 350 AB – 212 Matt – 126 Al – -69 Jack – -76 Monta – -86
JRich was worse than TMNT in this series despite his 30 point game 3 when they came home?
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Aug 11, 2010 10:00 PM PDT up reply actions
Very good catch!
The data is wrong at the test site – for some reason JRich in the playoffs isn’t in it at all. (See you can tell I really did it from numbers and ignored everything else. LOL) But considering that his numbers would have pushed AB’s out of the top 6, it might not have made any real difference. Certainly not on the amount Al, Monta and Jack decreased the team’s performance.
Baseball is a chamber orchestra. Football is a marching band. Basketball is a modern quintet. jazz, rock, hiphop, pop/ all about the beat./ still my revolution not/ til you dance through it.
Very good catch!
Haha, Not that hard for anyone who actually watched that series. I recall Jason starting slow but really coming on when they came home.
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Aug 12, 2010 10:23 AM PDT up reply actions
considering the alternatives
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/433183-is-andris-biedrins-on-the-stephen-jackson-track
"It’s frickin’ Sisyphean to be a Warriors Fan."
The really funny thing is that the team chemistry was one of the only positive thing about that whole season. The contention that Jack destroyed the team is laughable, especially considering our only really good run of the year came immediately after he was traded.
Sittin in my scraper watchin Oakland goin wild, ta-dow!
5-8
If I thought I was an elite NBA center I would only be focusing on removing the embarrassment of a 5pt 8 rb a game, injury ridden season.
My focus wouldn’t be on my teammates but on how I could restore my name and rep.
Nothing about 5 points and 8 rebounds is embarrassing. It was pretty good per minute contributions since he had a torn abdomen.
"Everybody loves Basketball-Reference.com. Except the Kobe fans".- DubsFan408
by GovernorStephCurry on Aug 12, 2010 12:10 PM PDT up reply actions
your observation dovetails into the comments above that his game depends upon a team game (as opposed to a player like say Zach Randolph, who is going to get his points regardless of how the team performs overall) – AB needs others to make his game productive and much of his commentary illuminates that he prefers playing in that style. Although I have been more moderate in my haste to move Monta than many hereabouts, I read his comments as more directed at Ellis than say Curry, but that’s just interpretation of translation …
"It’s frickin’ Sisyphean to be a Warriors Fan."
(as opposed to a player like say Zach Randolph, who is going to get his points regardless of how the team performs overall)
Or, one might say, regardless of whether or not him getting his points is actually good for his team.
Randolph, for most of his career, has been a below average efficiency scorer.
I think that's backwards.
AB’s consistent, normal production is relatively invisible. It doesn’t draw your attention or stay in your memory. He alwa.ys produces, but his scoring production requires others. I would call him an independent producer. Monta, on the other hand, has no visible production without others around him. That’s what I meant by dependent
Baseball is a chamber orchestra. Football is a marching band. Basketball is a modern quintet. jazz, rock, hiphop, pop/ all about the beat./ still my revolution not/ til you dance through it.
Right. Because most players are "embarassed" by their performance when they're playing when they should have had surgery.
It’s like you guys can’t get this point:you don’t judge a player by his performance when he’s injured.
Yes most jocks are embarassed whenever their performance falls way below what they think they are capable of. But with AB I heard no talk of restoring his name instead he put the blame on everyone down to the trainers. Anyway, I’m old school and the only thing that makes an elite center is wins, losing teams have journeyman centers, or rookies.
Anyway, I’m old school and the only thing that makes an elite center is wins, losing teams have journeyman centers, or rookies.
Can we at least try to focus on what the individual brings to winning, rather than whether he has the “unique talent” of playing with good teammates….?
by Missing Barry on Aug 13, 2010 8:01 AM PDT up reply actions
Luc Longley
played center on multiple championship teams. Having seen both, I’m pretty sure AB is substantially better.
Baseball is a chamber orchestra. Football is a marching band. Basketball is a modern quintet. jazz, rock, hiphop, pop/ all about the beat./ still my revolution not/ til you dance through it.
L L
Biedrins falls somewhere between Longley and Greg Ostertag.
Thou, Luc did shot the 20 footer,
Both productive, but not elite.
By “falls between” you mean “is much, much better than either”?
In terms of production, athleticism and game, Biedrins is closer to Dwight Howard than he is to Longley or Ostertag.
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Aug 14, 2010 7:23 AM PDT up reply actions
And Ostertag falls closer to Biedrins than he does to Longley. Longley: 6 fouls to give in the right place at the right time. (Also one of the few cases where playing alongside a better rebounder seems to have noticeably curbed his rebound total.)
a little harsh on Luc
but I can’t argue too much. He was a pretty good passer, and his lack of ego was crucial.
Baseball is a chamber orchestra. Football is a marching band. Basketball is a modern quintet. jazz, rock, hiphop, pop/ all about the beat./ still my revolution not/ til you dance through it.
Greg
Have to disagree, Bierdrins has not had a careeer nearly as productive as Greg O
who rebounded as well and had much more of an offensive game.
Always put up decent numbers as a 4th option. And his teams won.
Greg Ostertag
averaged 4.6 PPG over the course of his career. Per 36, his career stat line looks like
8.6 P, 10.1 R, 1.1 A, 0.5 S, 3.2 B, 1.7 TO, 4.6 PF with a .512 TS%. It looks like he was better defensively than Andris, but he wasn’t half the rebounder or even passer as Andris is. Andris also is a more effective scorer. Ostertag may have been able to create his own shot, but he did it at a very low efficiency and really didn’t score many points. I guess you could say that he’s been more productive over the course of his career due to the length of his career, but on a per minute basis, Andris kills him. Career WS48 is 0.146 vs 0.110 in favor of Andris. By this stat, Ostertag produced 33.8 wins over the course of his regular season career in 756 games. Andris has produced only 25.8, but that is in 351 games. Obviously, win shares isn’t a perfect stat, but it helps illustrate the point that Andris kills Ostertag as far as per minute production goes.
Sick of fighting with my computer
by Reverend_Randy on Aug 14, 2010 8:01 PM PDT up reply actions
Left out Andris' per 36 on accident
12.1 P, 12.2 R, 1.6 AST, 1.0 STL, 1.9 BLK, 1.7 TO, 5.1 PF
Bolded are stats that Andris beats Ostertag in.
Sick of fighting with my computer
by Reverend_Randy on Aug 14, 2010 8:02 PM PDT up reply actions
Greg O
was a player that had more then twice as many blocked shots as he had turnovers for his career, with Greg O and Malone on the backline you did not drive the lane in Utah. At 7’2 he wasn’t pushed off the block by the likes of Ewing, clearned a path for one of the top rebounding PF of all time.
Teams won.
Teams won.
Here we go again. His teammates were good. So? What did HE do to contribute to that winning? Why are so many people so ok with giving a guy credit for what his teammates accomplish?
by Missing Barry on Aug 15, 2010 1:50 PM PDT up reply actions
was a player that had more then twice as many blocked shots as he had turnovers
I know, I just posted his career stats. Contrary to what you said, he wasn’t much of an offensive threat. He was also a career 20 MPG guy, for good reason. He wasn’t that good at all.
Sick of fighting with my computer
by Reverend_Randy on Aug 15, 2010 3:02 PM PDT up reply actions
Greg O and Malone on the backline you did not drive the lane in Utah. At 7’2 he wasn’t pushed off the block by the likes of Ewing, clearned a path for one of the top rebounding PF of all time.
Teams won.
Indeed. Do you think that maybe Biedrins might win, too, if he played on a team with two no-doubt hall-of-famers?
You manage an interesting combo: you not only name check one of those those hall-of-famers (who also happens to be one of the NBA’s top 20 players of all time) and yet simultaneously give Ostertag credit for the team’s success.
The best two players Andris has ever played with at the same time are probably Baron Davis and Stephen Jackson. That team “won” in the two seaons it existed together. It would have won more if you replaced those two players with Malone and Stockton.
Malone and Stockton were really, really, really good. Giving credit for the team’s success to Ostertag is insane.
How about giving credit to Jeff Hornacek?
Can I credit him for the team’s success?
by WestCoastWarrior on Aug 16, 2010 2:58 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Anybody who watched
him play over 20 games, should know he wasn’t that good without having to look at stats. He was just huge and he liked to play rough. He also had a fella giving him the ball named John Stockton, aside from the very few times he managed to score every game. Very limited skills, huge body.
Recommended!
Great presentation of the details!
I love Beidren’s soft hands and touch at the rim. Plus, he is priced about right for an adequate starting center.
We are woefully thin (pun intended) at center, so we are really going to need Beans to get back into form. Losing Turiaf and Randolph is going to hurt us a lot down low on defense and offense
Also, the point about B Diddy’s drive penetration setting up the dump-off pass to Beidren’s is well-taken. I watched the USA b-ball game yesterday and it seemed like Steph looked a little beefier and was more willing to take it into the paint against defenders…He did get stuffed on that move a couple of times though, so hopefully Steph and Beans/Lee will resurect the dump-off pass.
Rergardless, the schedule looks pretty tough, especially early in the year, so I will be eagerly watching our boy’s body language and general mental toughness. Beans needs to make sure that his approach to the season includes having thick skin…the early road will be rocky!!
Beans is a good role player
But when he isnt living up to his potential, he is ineffective. True he doesnt hurt us by jacking up a ton-o shots, but he just turns into a soft, unconfident center who cant really produce anything on his one, and isnt contributing much of anything to the team.
He fell off some, injured or not, and it’s up to him and monta to prove they still have a future with this organization. Fair or not.
by WestCoastWarrior on Aug 16, 2010 11:35 AM PDT reply actions
He fell off some, injured or not,
You present "injured or not" as if it somehow doesn’t matter. Yes, he fell off some. On offense he went from a guy who got enough offensive rebounds and was close enough in that those ‘dunks and putbacks’ (that detractors seem to think happen automatically) just didn’t happen often enough to be much of a contribution. It also seemed to shake his confidence in general. The fall off was real, but if it was the result of an injury, poorly diagnosed that Nellie publicly stated he was over despite it later turning out to be something that required surgery, then there’s significant reason to think that, if healthy, he won’t play the same way he did when he was rather seriously injured. If the fall-off was unrelated to the injury, something I don’t buy into but there’s a not completely idiotic argument to be made for, then the fall off is more worrisome.
who cant really produce anything on his one, and isnt contributing much of anything to the team.
There’s more to the game than individual scoring. Even when hurt, he was pulling down many, many rebounds. That is a contribution, a significant one.
ok dude
but you dont even address my real point.
Fair or not its up to monta and Beans to prove they still have a spot on this team.
by WestCoastWarrior on Aug 17, 2010 9:42 AM PDT reply actions
Ok dude, use the “reply” option when replying. And don’t assume that “your real point” is either clear or somehow dictates what people can and cannot reply to.
reply to whatever you want to
But I notice you dont really address main points, just things to argue with (like hitting the reply botton)
You got me there ;)
You still dont. “Fair or not, its up to Monta and Beans to prove they still have a spot on this team.”
by WestCoastWarrior on Aug 17, 2010 2:08 PM PDT up reply actions
You made several points. Normally, the main point comes first
and everything else backs it up. Taking down the 2nd and 3rd sub-points makes the main point weaker.
Sick of fighting with my computer
by Reverend_Randy on Aug 17, 2010 8:00 PM PDT up reply actions
True but
I keep saying repeatedly that the point I was making was that whether it is fair or not, both Monta and Beans need to prove they still have a spot on this team, I was talking about Beans, but I threw Monta’s name in there too. Yet that goes completely ignored over and over. What is the point of people continuing to respond if they wont address what you mean?
“You present “injured or not” as if it somehow doesn’t matter." – It doesnt really affect the fact that he still needs to prove he belongs here. Whether you think it is valid or not, there is good reason to support the Warriors are comfortable with parting ways.
“There’s more to the game than individual scoring. Even when hurt, he was pulling down many, many rebounds. That is a contribution, a significant one.”
I agree and I would never think that individual scoring is all there is to the game, but to say Beans was a “significant” contributor last year is your opinion, and I really disagree with it.
And neither of those points take away from the statement that Monta and Beans both have to earn their future with this team’s new direction and new owners.
by WestCoastWarrior on Aug 18, 2010 8:41 AM PDT up reply actions
What is the point of people continuing to respond if they wont address what you mean?
People tend to have an easier time addressing what you say rather than what you mean, especially when the latter is not altogether clear from what you wrote. What you wrote is all that we have to go on. The natural flow of conversations here doesn’t always lend itself to people addressing what you considered the main point of what you wrote. Getting bent out of shape that someone picked up on other aspects of what you wrote seems silly.
Monta and Beans both have to earn their future with this team’s new direction and new owners.
Monta and Beans both have to earn their future with this team’s new direction and new owners.
by WestCoastWarrior on Aug 18, 2010 2:00 PM PDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
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)
NBA Playoffs Content Module
Related FanPosts on Golden State Of Mind
Related FanShots on Golden State Of Mind
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Featured Stories
Most Commented
In Association With
Ball Don't Lie - NBA - Yahoo! Sport
- C-a-C: This is probably as close to LeBron James working with John Waters as we’ll ever get
- Dwyane Wade’s hot pink pants: The kind of thing you can get away with when you drop 41
- Lamar Odom to New York? Dwight Howard on the move? For now, it’s all talk
- David West hilariously denies each and every one of his young fans a high-five (VIDEO)
- Behind the Box Score, where the Miami Heat are moving on to the conference finals
