Should Lacob and Guber Replace Warriors Management?
Should Lacob and Guber Replace Warriors Management?
1. Fire Rowell, Riley and Nelson Immediately and Get Replacements!
2. Take a Test Drive and If It Doesn't Work Out, Then Get Replacements
3. Keep One or Two, But Not All Three
4. Other (Please Explain)
The Golden State Warriors have two roster spots left and they need to fill it because Ekpe Udoh is injured and out until late January and Brandan Wright needs to prove to his critics that he can take the pounding of the NBA and not get hurt. Joe Lacob said he wants a relatively “young” coach. Clearly, Don Nelson does not fit the description. However, we get news that head coach options may be limited. Afterward, there was news that Lacob wants a test drive of the head coach and GM. One test drives a car. If they test drive a manager, usually it comes with an interim label. Not one that has been in place for years. Somewhere in all of that, there came news that Warriors President Robert Rowell knows team secrets, so he should be kept on as a consultant, at least, for the transition. Already the Warriors old management under Christopher Cohan have been releasing Warriors news, feeding BS to the media, in order for them to keep their jobs under new ownership. And new ownership has been reluctant to have new management ready to go such as highest bidder Larry Ellison. I am not the only one to ask why? Critical thinking Warrior fans have done the same.
The answer lies in the fact that the Warriors have been ahead of the game in getting season ticket renewals. I do not know the exact numbers, but compared to the Sacramento Kings who got into the six thousand range after the 2010 NBA Draft, the Warriors easily beat their closest competition. They are close to double that, if not more, than the Kings’ numbers. To look at the Kings, once season ticket sales dropped in early 2009, the Kings started to clean house. However, season ticket sales have not dropped for the Warriors. They continue to remain strong. It’s the San Francisco Bay Area with the educated sports fans who make basketball a close second to the San Francisco 49ers and Oakland Raiders. If there was another team in the San Jose area, then things would be different. Lacob and Guber would be fighting to sell season tickets and they would do what is necessary to attract them and that would be to replace the sixteen years of misery under Cohan and his management group. Even Major League Baseball has two teams in the area and are careful to distinguish which part of the bay they reside.
Other teams such as the Philadelphia 76ers were able to get former Nets President of Basketball Operations, Rod Thorn, as their president. This was not out of circumstance, but planned. It would be a pleasant surprise to this Warrior fan if Lagoober had someone in place already such as former Portland Trailblazer President Tom Penn, who is a NBA salary cap expert, and former GM and ex-Warrior, Kevin Pritchard, as replacements to come in when Lagoober gets approved.
As for head coach, there are the likes of Leonard Frank who will cost $$$$s or Brian Shaw, an Oakland native, who would cost less, but play the triangle, a style different from the run and gun Warriors.
You see the facts of life are that owners want to 1. Make money. 2. Make the playoffs. 3. Win championships. After #1 is accomplished, then several are not motivated to do what it takes for #2 and #3. If owners are guaranteed before the season to make money, then there isn’t much incentive to change things. It’s like paying rookie quarterback Sam Bedford all that guaranteed money even before he takes an official NFL snap. Jiminy Crickets, it’s more than what established star quarterbacks in the league make. With the Golden Steate Warriors, its just the law of supply and demand and just seeing the evil bastard, Christopher J. Cohan, go was enough to get fans buying season tickets again.
What do you think the new Warriors owners should do?
This FanPost is a submission from a member of the mighty Golden State of Mind community. While we're all here to throw up that W, these words do not necessarily reflect the views of the GSoM Crew. Still, chances are the preceding post is Unstoppable Baby!
208 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Well a new president is the first move and I would hope that they are looking at that right at this time.
I think that there is something like a 90 day transfer period.
Anyway I am of the mind that they will get a new president first then take the next logical step of deciding whether to bring in a new GM straight away and after that a decision on timing for a new coach.
In my opinion the smart move is to keep Nellie in at minimum thru Jan. and evaluate the team. The new president should be in place first to be a part of a decision making team for the GM decision “then” the GM should be included in the coaching decisions.
If the new owners hire a new coach without a management team in place then they would have about as much ability running a team a it seems you would.
by Only In Fairfax on Aug 16, 2010 10:35 AM PDT reply actions
The transfer period
Lacob and Guber may not be able to do anything during the transfer period, but they can announce new management will be coming in if they wanted to. Instead Lacob came out with some ambiguous statements.
I agree that Rowell would be the easiest to cut. He’s not even mentioned as a “test drive.”
"Go ahead. Make my day."
No they can't actually
Publicly committing to anything other than a complete review would be a big mistake.
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.
Not really. Larry Ellison did it.
Too bad he didn’t get the deal even as high bidder.
"Go ahead. Make my day."
You mean, despite claiming to be the highest bidder, right?
I just want to point out that despite all the chatter, there isn’t one shred of evidence to support the notion that Cohan had something personal against Ellison.
We only have Ellison’s claim that he was the highest bidder. It is just as easy, if not easier, to hypothesize a reason that Ellison would lie about that as it is to come up with a reason why Cohan – notoriously stingy, with money problems – would leave millions of dollars on the table.
I’m under the impression that “claim” was also at the last minute after Ellison refused to increase his offer for a long time, and Cohan had more or less already agreed with Lacob’s group….
by Missing Barry on Aug 17, 2010 3:15 PM PDT up reply actions
what's the point of the test drive?
We saw everything we needed to see with Rowell rejecting the chance to keep Baron as an all time Warrior, knee jerk over paying of Maggette, handing an extension to Stackjack when it wasn’t needed, treating Monta like an investment instead of a person. Then he follows it up with all of the double talk about wanting to build a winner, but making trades that are salary dumps – Stackjack for Vlad Rad and Bell, Crawford (Sixth Man of the year) for Acie Law?, Bellineli for George., and he’s probably most likely responsible for going to the NBA DL for any fill in players rather than getting any actualy NBA players. For crying out loud, the poor marketing staff had to pump up Cartier Martin and Coby Karl.
Rowell is a business guy, not a basketball guy. He has destroyed any credibility that Mullin started to build, and helped to drive out our best players (Baron, Stackjack, and Monta seems halfway out the door), by trying to make money decisions, instead of basketball / team chemistry decisions. He gave Mullin 5 years and said that it was a failure to only make the playoffs once, when he’s been there for 8 years and somehow isn’t held to the same standard. Get him out of there.
As for Riley, it’s tough to make a call on a guy like that because it’s difficult to tell whether the moves were his, Rowell’s or Nellie’s. Maybe with proper guidance or a plan from the new owners, he can be effective.
As for Nellie, all I want is for him not to alienate and destroy the confidence of whatever players we have. I think that he is one of the more brilliant and innovative coaches in the game, but his ego gets in the way. He’s good at figuring out how to build something out of what he’s given, but he’s not good at picking the parts. Once he charms the management into taking his side, and starts being responsible for personnel moves, everything goes downhill. He might be an effective coach for this last year if it is made clear that he will only be coaching.
by Ice Watter In His Veins! on Aug 16, 2010 10:59 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Rowell is probably the most "hated."
Mine would be get rid of all of them, but I think Rowell’s name rises to the top when deciding who goes first.
"Go ahead. Make my day."
Don’t let anyone go until you have their successor in place. In terms of people like Riley/Nellie, I think that would probably have to wait until the end of the season. So it’s not really a “test drive” as much as just waiting for the right replacements to become available. Ultimately, we should completely clean house.
I agree with Barry
Getting rid of everyone right away without the right replacements in place just to decisively start a new era would ironically be caring on traditions of the old era. Knee jerk reactions without much more thought than the short term situation.
To truelly build a long term winner, getting the right personel is more important than the exact timing of when you move out the old wrong personel.
Even Rowell sticking around for a LITTLE bit could be beneficial to the team
by WestCoastWarrior on Aug 16, 2010 2:53 PM PDT up reply actions
I don't have a replacement for Nelson unless its Keith Smart.
But I’m having second thoughts about Smart because he has a losing record. However, I think he’ll improve the defense a bit and play two big men more. Smallball and weird player substitutions drives me nuts.
GM = Kevin Pritchard and Prez = Tom Penn (cap expert).
"Go ahead. Make my day."
Smallball and weird player substitutions drives me nuts.
I saw way too much of this out of Keith Smart last year when he took over. I have 0 interest in him as our head coach.
by Missing Barry on Aug 18, 2010 7:03 AM PDT up reply actions
well
it’s a bit unfair considering he had basically half a team. Furthermore, we don’t know if he was following a specific design constructed by Nelson. It’s a bit weak to draw conclusions based on the context of which he took over for that very short period of time.
There’s many reasons why Smart would be a better coach than Nelson this season. I have to admit that 70% of them would be political, to appease people like me and you…well maybe not you, but you get what I mean.
I suspect that without Nellie, Smart would have coached differently, but nothing suggested that it would have been better. He didn’t just echo Nellie’s rotation. He seemed more enthralled with Mikki Moore than Nellie. It’s limited information, but none of it was positive information.
There are other young coaches who can connect with players. There’s nothing particularly special about Smart that suggests that he should get any special consideration just because he’s already here.
Rowell needs to leave ASAP
Rowell doesn’t deserve a test drive. He should be thrown out immediately & the Warriors organization will fedex him all the personal possessions he’s left behind in his office.
As for Nelson & Riley, I’m not so sure what to do with them. Riley has actually pulled off some pretty good moves this off season & we don’t know how many of the bad moves from the past were because of the previous ownership.
This will be Nelson’s last year. Rather the organization takes its time to get next head coach (which is easier to achieve w/ Nelly willing to coach only one more year). Plus, Nelly has been a strong proponent of Monta & Curry being able to succeed together in the back court. I’d like to see if Nelly can pull this off because I’m thinking most coaches wouldn’t feel so confident trying to pull this off.
From a fan perspective, Rowell’s obviously the easiest axing. From an ownership perspective, though, I’d think he’s the most valuable. Rowell is very, very good at raising revenue… he’s probably better at his job than Riley and Nellie are at theirs. And while he shouldn’t have a say in personnel decisions, it’s pretty easy to keep him from having one.
He’ll probably get the axe to sate the fans’ thirst for his blood, and that’s fine, but I do get why Robert Rowell has kept his job so long. A lot of the windfall Cohan got in selling the team is due to Rowell.
Golden State Worriers: Angst & Analysis
but I do get why Robert Rowell has kept his job so long.
i don’t. the dubs gross profit resembles that of a mid-market team (Detroit, Minnesota, etc) instead of the top 10 market that they reside in.
you might point to the winning, but the Knicks & the Clippers have no problem selling like a major market despite their lack of winning.
Lacob & Gruber paid what they paid b/c the Dubs should be raking in a lot more than they are due to cheap seats (in terms of for their market size) & a poor job of bringing in corporate sponsorship. if you were given access to the #‘s, you’d be surprised how many of the Clippers season tickets in the lower bowl are corporate owned. from what i’ve heard, that’s not the case in Golden State.
Rowell is horrible at his job of team president b/c he meddles in the basketball ops & b/c he sucks at generating revenue. the only thing he & the promotions dept. is good at is getting attendance up. he should lose his job asap. Lacob can just go to the head of the promotions dept to get the info on manufacturing attendance.
by the evil monkey on Aug 16, 2010 2:52 PM PDT up reply actions
but the Knicks & the Clippers have no problem selling like a major market despite their lack of winning.
The Clippers were 20th out of 30 teams in terms of attendance. You should clarify what you mean by “selling like a major market” a bit more. If you mean gate revenue and attendance, it does not appear that your statement is true as you present it.
I heard different.
Rowell didn’t get a good media nor arena deal as other teams. However, I don’t have comparable numbers. But if you look at his basketball decisions — vetoing Baron Davis’ $39 M extension, giving Jackson an extension for $27.8 M when he did not have to and bypassing Mullin, lied to STH about deals, gave Nelson 2 year, handling botched Mullin firing, $12 M extension, hiring Nelson crony Larry Riley, threatening to cancel Ellis’ contract over moped incident from the getgo, losing trade exceptions and more bad decisions!
"Go ahead. Make my day."
There is no conceivable justification for keeping Rowell.
I suspect he will be fired, and quite possibly not replaced. Rowell’s job will be being done by Lacob.
I think you have to fire Nelson right away. He’s not coming back after this year, anyway, so I think it’s time to start building the future. There is very little gain in keeping him around any longer. There is a reason so few coaches coach the last year of their contract except if they’ve won titles in their current situation and are consdering retirement, but basically know they can come back if they want to. The discipline issues with players are just too big.
Firing Nelson, in this light, isn’t even a commentary on how he’s coached the last few years. It’s entirely, 100% necessary based just on the future of the team. We’re already taking steps in a new direction (eg, Nelson not being involved in the draft) so why drag our feet? Since the ultimate direction of the franchise lies in a different direction, not firing Nelson would be little more than dilly-dallying. Decisiveness is called for.
Riley is the hardest call. The first thing to realize is that he’s already getting his “test drive” because Lacob is working with him during this offseason. If Lacob doesn’t feel good about that working relationship, then there’s no need for a further test drive. If Lacob DOES feel good about it, nothing that happens in the next six months on the court is going to reveal any new information about RIley.
Decisiveness is called for.
Eh, I’m not sure I agree with this. I think the most important thing is to find quality replacements. That doesn’t necessarily happen overnight. I’d rather have them wait too long to find the right person then remove certain people before they’ve found the right replacement for the sake of decisiveness.
by Missing Barry on Aug 16, 2010 1:30 PM PDT up reply actions
Well, I would hope they're already exploring their options and having preliminary discussions.
And, under the subset possibility that nobody they like is available – which is possible, but unlikely IMHO – then I’ll hold my nose and be okay with not firing Nellie.
Well, I would hope they’re already exploring their options and having preliminary discussions.
i don’t. that would constitute tampering if the coaches in question are under contract & the team has not sought permission. if i’m not mistaken, Lacob has yet to sell his minority stake in the Celtics as well. the only preliminary discussions they could have are internally…
most of the illegal talks occurs with agents or when they have a trusted friend in the business (for Lacob it would have to be a candidate w/in the Celtics organization). but most teams still interview a coach twice before making that decision. if that were occurring, it’d get out eventually. NBA people (especially those in the league office) are notorious gossipers. historically fines have been up to $5 million and included the forfeiting of picks.
i’m not sure how familiar you are with ownership changes, but i’d be surprised if anything happened. in any kind of ownership change, whether it be acquisition, take over or whatnot, there is always a transition period. i’d assume it’s similar in the NBA. according to Marcus Thompson II there has probably never been an instance where new ownership just started firing guys. the instances where early changes have happened all involved someones contract running out (meaning in mid-July).
interviewing coaches takes time. and negotiating a contract with a new coach doesn’t happen overnight. neither does assembling that coaches staff. most coaches want to be in place prior to training camp.
the only candidate is Rowell whose job was to be the pseudo-owner in place of Cohan. but it appears Lacob will take that role of making the financial decisions (and hence bball decisions b/c all bball decisions are also financial ones).
by the evil monkey on Aug 16, 2010 3:29 PM PDT up reply actions
Well, I would hope they’re already exploring their options and having preliminary discussions.
Definitely. I just have the opposite view. I think it’s quite unlikely a good candidate is available to take over for this season. Why? Because if they were available for this season, they probably would have been hired by a different team already. It’s just an odd time to be looking for those kinds of replacements relative to the yearly basketball schedule. I think we’ll find a much better talent pool at a different time.
by Missing Barry on Aug 16, 2010 7:14 PM PDT up reply actions
I think Lacob shares my sentiments….. ;)
It’s not about making quick decisions, necsesarily, here. But it is about making bold decisions. I do think we need to make bold decisions. When the timing is right, when you’ve done all the calculating, you can make bold decisions.
Timing’s a real problem. Look, it’s obvious. I wish were buying the team at a different time of year. But the simple fact of the matter is we will not gain control of this team until camp has already started, likely. Trying to work through those issues, see if I can have an impact before then. But right now, I’m not allowed to.
Timing is just poor for making new hires now. Best make sure you find the right people and hire them when they’re available!
by Missing Barry on Aug 18, 2010 8:55 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Would you rather
play Pargo or try and convert nearly any other player on your bench to a guard? While “Caution: Characters Named in This Analogy Appear More Extreme Than Real Life” might be an appropriate response, I really feel like the issue is the same regarding Nelson, at this point.
We have a new, young high-motor team. And an old, old, low-motor coach. Two key elements of it arguably have been mishandled by Nellie – the only two around longer than a year. We have a few reports – but enough to be troubling – that he pushes players to play when they actually aren’t physically ready. That would be enough to warrant serious thought, if you’ve established a personnel base capable of being very very good for the next 5+ years.
Tweaking is great, and experimentation is good, especially when the necessity is there like last year. But excessive rotation changes – constant involvement on the sideline – means that you aren’t confident in the unit on the floor. I think Nellie’s overvalued as a coach the way Iverson (or any mostly-flash performer) has been as a player, and that he has a poor internal “feel” for game flow efficiency. The combination might explain why his coaching seasons appear more subject to “luck” than other successful coaches.
In Nellie’s case, there is a pattern of heavy roster tweaking – continuous roster tweaking – over his entire career. When you have a roster that’s as solid on paper as our top 6 are, you don’t keep tweaking because the odds are you are going to make it worse. Nellie’s more likely to hurt the production on the floor than help it.
So that’s all bad enough. But this whole “test drive” PR campaign is what put me utterly and completely done with a Nellie-influenced organization. Floating this isn’t a random occurrence, and it’s not fan generated, or writer generated. It’s a deliberate attempt to sway the new owners via public opinion. If Nellie and Smart had done a good job, they’d let it speak for itself. NO one is seriously floating Smart for HC, as far as I can tell – he’s just the status-quo alternative that lets the Nellie supporter say “but then you might as well keep Nelson”. The writers buy it because someone on the current staff is their “inside person”, and if they lose the coaching staff they lose the access to “insiders”. It’s cynical and manipulative, and that’s the last face new owners should want.
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 if I hear
one more comment about smallball, or run and gun, or innovation in general, and Nellie’s role in developing any of them, I think I’ll puke. “Point forward” – give me a freaking break. The league has been running on “point wing-type players” since Magic. It’s an innovation to find a unique player, and to change your model based on that. It’s not an innovation to continually try to find players to fit your theoretical model – it’s thinking that your idea of what you know is more important than working with what you have.
Fully interchangable players? Smallball? Maybe you look back to the Ilwaco (Washington) Fisherman in 1967-68. A high school team that went 6 deep between 5’11 and 6’1, and averaged well over 80 points a game in the state tournament, breaking 100 at least once on their way to an undefeated season.
Run and gun keyed off a swing player leading to inflated stats? Freeman Williams, Portland State University, 1976-78. See also for what drafting based on those stats gets you.
I’m old enough and was in the right place enough times to see that stuff. I know that his reputation for innovation is overrated, because I saw them before he ever implemented them.
Long vent, but Nellie’s the second biggest problem the team has. The biggest is the perception that he’s not.
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.
yet he's still our most successful coach in 20 years
That’s a problem too
by WestCoastWarrior on Aug 16, 2010 2:47 PM PDT up reply actions
He's had a little more success
but “most successful” is a perception. NO coach the w’s have had over that period has been successful with the team, period. For teams with good coaches, a second-round loss is a problem year, not the pinnacle of success.
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.
I think I know what your saying, but that doesnt make sense
Im not saying to keep him, or that he achieved whatever definition of success you use. But if he had more success than other coaches, even “slightly more success.” Than he has in fact been our MOST successful coach. That is not so much “perception” as it is logic.
by WestCoastWarrior on Aug 16, 2010 4:15 PM PDT up reply actions
Mostly word play, but
“most successful” implies there was some success to begin with. I think you can argue Nellie had the “least unsuccessful two seasons in the last 10 years”, but then you have to balance it with “and the most unsuccessful two seasons”
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.
Well there was some success
Unless you lose all 82 games, the glass is always partially full.
There was some amount of success for him to make it to the playoffs. That doesnt mean I would say he is a success, but if we measured success (and Im sure someone here has an advanced statistic to do so), Nellie would be at the top of a pitiful list, and that’s nothing to brag about.
Call it most successful or leas unsuccessful, but I think he did have some level of success, even if it was inadequate by most standards.
by WestCoastWarrior on Aug 17, 2010 8:57 AM PDT up reply actions
Nelson was undoubtably the most successful coach over that period ...
… but it’s also worth pointing out that he had the best talent of any coach in that period, too. And when he hasn’t had talent, he hasn’t won.
On further reflection, here's a counterargument:
It’s quite possible that any generic coaching hire might be better than Nelson for two reasons
First, Nelson doesn’t get along with one of our starting five (Biedrins), and it sounds like it’s gone personal. We to be careful about letting a situation fester that might force us to make another talent-losing trade.
Second, Nelson has a demonstrated unwillingness to push Monta to change his game away from the destructive pattern he used last year. If Nellie returns as coach, and Monta puts up a similar season (hogging the ball, throwing up too many prayers, etc) we have no idea: is that who Monta is, now, or is that Nellie just didn’t try. Whereas if we bring in a new coach – even somebody who may not be the right long-term choice – we have much more confidence about the need to move on from Monta.
If Monta is recoverable, he’s far too talented to not make a full effort to recover.
Exactly. As I see it, there’s far more risk in letting Nellie stay than in hiring someone who sucks for a year… at least a new someone wouldn’t bring the same baggage.
Golden State Worriers: Angst & Analysis
we’re in firm agreement on this, at least :)
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.
The problem is....
Owners hiring a coach before the president and GM are in place is simply a mistake. Nellie will have to stay through end 2010 it seems.
by Only In Fairfax on Aug 17, 2010 5:24 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I think Rowell
should be let go right away. Other than that I say let Nellie coach his last year. He’s making 6M, might as well let him coach his last year then go after Brian Shaw after our season. As for GM, I would demote Larry Riley to assistant GM and bring in Kevin Prichard.
Golden State Warriors Fan 4 Life!!!
Owner: Joe Lacob, Peter Guber
GM: Kevin Prichard
Coach: Brian Shaw
Over 1,000 wins online with GSW in 2K10
..............SC30..............
clean house
LAcob and co should already be putting together their short list and getting things in place for when they take over the team.
Worse case – fire nelson and put in smart as interim… that is the only “test drive”acceptable.
Interesting and sad that an article came out today about Jerry West, his relationship with Ellison and wanting to get back into the GM business at the very least a consultant. And as the article states – what could have been.
Not surprising – Ellis says he is happy bring a Warrior and it seems to get overlooked, no post, or maybe i overlooked and missed it.
Easy
Fire Rowell immediately. Keep Riley since he’s doing a decent job and Nelson from what I have read is going to be staying until the end of his contract.
I lean towards cleaning house
I’m pleased with Riley, ho-hum about Nellie, and just pissed at Rowell. That being said, I think cleaning house and having high expectations for this team straight out the gate is the way to win respect, from the media, the fans and other players.
I would fire Nelson, and keep the other two-for now.
Let Smart have interim role, and next offseason when there are better options than Smart, Mark Jackson, and Shaw.
"Everybody loves Basketball-Reference.com. Except the Kobe fans".- DubsFan408
by GovernorStephCurry on Aug 16, 2010 6:19 PM PDT reply actions
wow
gov did we just agree on something? wow a first
Nice use of reply button.
"Everybody loves Basketball-Reference.com. Except the Kobe fans".- DubsFan408
by GovernorStephCurry on Aug 16, 2010 8:27 PM PDT up reply actions
#1. Fire Rowell ASAP
We’ve seen enough of him
2. Let Nellie go, keep Keith Smart
Tired old man has no energy left to coach team.
3. Riley stays, see how he does.
He’s been doing an okay-job so far.
Can anybody tell me 1 move that Riley has made that was bad? I love every move he has made as GM so far besides the Jackson trade but even with that we are able to get expirings.
by J-RIDAH on Aug 17, 2010 9:25 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
I agree with you.
I think Riley has a talent for communication and he shows a knowledge for the game. I can gather a few conclusions after hearing Riley talk for awhile – Hes a very hard worker, and he’s got more vision than people give him credit for having. The nature of his association with Nelson, and the timing of his entrance has giving him a bad rep. His personality seems very adaptable, and I think that would bode well for a man like Lacob. I can see the too of them being able to converse future deals and pitch them together.
I really love all the things Riley has done. The Randolph for Lee deal was amazing. Every player in that deal was replaced, instantaneously. 1)Randolph – Lee 2)Azubuike – Williams 3)Turiaf – Udoh
But perhaps my favorite thing that Riley has done above all, was the Maggette trade, followed by the Dorell Wright signing. If Maggette were just traded for these players with that being the end of it, it would have been a bad move. But Riley did what the Warriors never, ever, ever do – he actually finished the other 50% of the deal by going after another talented to player to fill in for the one he lost. Not only did he free up over 10 million in cap room, but he was aggressive and urgent enough to acquire a very good young player for a comparatively cheap price. Very nice work, well done.
Keep Riley around and fire the others.
by lilboots on Aug 17, 2010 9:55 AM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
I understand the Riley love. He might very well be good at his job
But at the end of the day it also comes down to whether he and Lacob are on the same page. I just wouldn’t be too upset if Lacob wanted to go with someone else he trusts and has had in mind. I’m not knocking on Riley, I can definitely see why people like him but if he and the new ownership fundamentally don’t view the game in the same manner it might be better to part ways.
I guess this is my way of saying don’t be shocked if there are a lot of changes coming up in terms of the front office in the next year.
Because talent? You want to add a guy like boozer because hes talented? I’m sorry i just don’t see that as a valid reason. -- fffindeed
by wallywagon11 on Aug 17, 2010 11:06 AM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
I wouldn't be shocked
Nor would I be overly disappointed if Riley were gone. But I think he’s been outstanding thus far, and deserves more than the hook. When I talked about him being a very adaptable man, I think he’ll prove to you that he is more than willing to be on the same page as Lacob, no matter what it takes.
I’m not saying Riley is the best manager out there for us, or that he should still be around 5 years from now. But, I do think he should finish what he’s started, and if he’s not a GM, I’d be honored to keep him around the organization, developing and assessing talent, and maybe even being a henchmen under a new, younger GM.
Rec.
It’s not about if Riley has done a great or poor job so far. It’s a question of if Lacob feels that Riley can be the co-architect of the winning program Lacob wants to build, if they can work positively together and share a common vision.
Ekpe Udoh
Was actually a draft pick I liked. Even though I thought Paul George was the BPA in terms of potential, (which is what the draft is about anyway) I thought Riley’s selection spoke volumes in regards to the new direction he is building the team towards. Interior defense, rebounding, perimeter defense, and length – these are all things Riley has immediately jumped on as soon as he got his chance.
Udoh is a player who supports the notion that the Warriors are opening to the idea of getting back to playing classic basketball. This is extremely encouraging and timely given the fact that we have acquired a point guard who is capable of being the culprit of a possible championship down the road, under further construction.
I am under the impression and personal opinion, that NBADRAFT.net is reliable source when it comes to tracking a players progress during the weeks leading up to the draft. Udoh consistently climbed that board with his workouts, which means he was getting the best of his peers, players like Monroe, Orton, Favors, etc.. I trust Riley’s vision in players so far, through listening to some of his assessments of players who are currently on the roster. If not, I’m perfectly fine with taking the safe draft choice when our team is in need of stability. I did not like Monroe, and hated the idea of drafting an unathletic soft big man, who has a passive approach to the game. Yuck. I hate finesse players who are over 6-10. Most of the time they are very bad, and don’t do the things you need them to do to win. We could have gambled with players who went later in the 1st round, but that would’ve been unpopular as well, would it not?
I’m not a big fan of measurements, but Udoh boasted an impressive no-step vertical leap. Given the fact that his greatest attribute is his shot-blocking, then we can rely on his great timing, extremely long arms, discipline staying down, and non-step vertical to translate to the pros, making him an effective shot blocker. We need somebody to fill in the void Turiaf left us with.
All in all, I think it was a good choice, and it’s fair to be skeptical. In hindsight, I don’t think you should really chalk him up as a mishap until he’s played at least a season. So I don’t think it really counts saying that Riley has “Failed” drafting Udoh. We will have to see.
I guess we'll see the answer soon enough but I would disagree
I thought Riley’s selection spoke volumes in regards to the new direction he is building the team towards. Interior defense, rebounding, perimeter defense, and length – these are all things Riley has immediately jumped on as soon as he got his chance….Udoh is a player who supports the notion that the Warriors are opening to the idea of getting back to playing classic basketball.
I already wrote a fanpost about this awhile back but I guess I’ll offer quick opinion on Udoh one more time. I understand the ideas behind Riley’s decision I just don’t think Udoh is the right fit. I think, even though he is a defensive minded player, he needs to be able to score somewhat. Basically, even by NBA defensive minded player standards his offense looks terrible. I also question how much of a rebounder he is going to be and I think that is just about as important as his overall defense. Unless he rebounds much better than I think he will or improves his jump shot, I fear he will not be an impact player in this league.
I personally think that Ed Davis or (forget his name) the guy from Wake Forest would be better fits if they wanted a rebounding defensive forward.
Because talent? You want to add a guy like boozer because hes talented? I’m sorry i just don’t see that as a valid reason. -- fffindeed
by wallywagon11 on Aug 17, 2010 11:14 AM PDT up reply actions
It's funny you mention that.
His strengths in his game besides his interior defense, quite notably and popular among pro teams, are his offensive rebounding skills and his mid-range jump shot. If we look at the strongest areas in his game, which are his off. rebounding and shot blocking, in a sense, he is already a complete player on both ends of the floor in this basic respect. Shot blocking and shot changing gives you more possessions, as does offensive rebounding. In this sense, he is quite a good offensive player.
That aside, there was an article here on GSoM about Udoh, which talked about how he improves his game vastly, virtually every year he’s played. And in all honesty, from what I’ve seen of him in college, he is not a bad offensive player at all! He is more fluid than you would think, and he’s got some soft touch on his jump hook. His broad shoulders protecting the ball, his long arms, and soft release should allow him to develop a respectable hook that he can score with consistently. He is a good passer. His footwork needs to improve. He is not explosive as some of your elite power forwards. But he is no slouch, and with his steady improvement, you would have to think that he is going to get better.
Just out of curiosity, what are you basing your observations on? Have you watched him play? I’m not trying to be disrespectful, I’d just like to know. Many people seem to have this opinion about him, while some who are more familiar with his game, don’t.
offensive rebounding skills and his mid-range jump shot
Most of my questions about his rebounding is in regards to his defensive rebounding which is very very low for a pro prospect. As for the jump shot I personally skeptical. A lot of this is based on the stats he put up and I do tend to favor looking at the stats more when it’s an older player who has had several years in college to show what they can do. For all I know his shot could already be significantly better than when he started playing last year but I must admit I have my doubts.
Just out of curiosity, what are you basing your observations on? Have you watched him play? I’m not trying to be disrespectful, I’d just like to know.
I saw a grand total of probably about 50 minutes of Baylor basketball this year. I know I must have seen him play when he was at Michigan St. but considering I don’t remember the name I don’t think I really noticed either way. I am largely basing my opinion on stats and considering how many games he played in college I feel fairly comfortable with how the stats hold on with him. But yes, it is hard to try and project pro play and obviously the scouts see something with him. I just tried comparing him to similar players in the past and I have a hard time seeing him do too much.
Either way, I could absolutely be wrong. Essentially my hypothesis is that based on the information I looked at I personally have my doubts about his defensive rebounding and shooting and I think it will limit his role in the NBA. I could be totally wrong but there really is only one way to find out. I think I took a fairly reasonable approach (although personally I would have done the fanpost a little different today) and I can’t wait to see whether I am completely wrong.
Because talent? You want to add a guy like boozer because hes talented? I’m sorry i just don’t see that as a valid reason. -- fffindeed
by wallywagon11 on Aug 17, 2010 11:34 AM PDT up reply actions
One quick and probably pointless comment
I am not actually hoping that Udoh fails here. He seems like an awesome kid and he is clearly insanely talented given that he was even drafted. He has potential and I hope it works out for him. I am just stating an opinion based on what I feel is relevant information. Pretty soon that information will be completely irrevelant because Udoh will be playing NBA games and that will be that.
Because talent? You want to add a guy like boozer because hes talented? I’m sorry i just don’t see that as a valid reason. -- fffindeed
by wallywagon11 on Aug 17, 2010 11:43 AM PDT up reply actions
Yeah
his defensive rebounding is horrible. But it’s a good thing we have players like Biedrins, Lee, and the Wrights. For this, I can somewhat tolerate such a weakness. But he should improve as his body becomes a bit stronger. He certainly has the desire. Barkley is a living testament of how far desire can take you under the boards. But he could suck forever. Like you said, we’ll have to see.
Though then again, Barkley is also a testament to how well college rebounding numbers translate to the pros. Barkley – 9.6 rebounds per game in 27.6 mpg in his 3 year college career. Udoh – 6.3 rebounds per game in 27.2 mpg in his 3 year college career. He did improve in his 3rd season, though, so at least that’s good….
by Missing Barry on Aug 17, 2010 12:16 PM PDT up reply actions
He was also like 23.5 as a senior.
"Everybody loves Basketball-Reference.com. Except the Kobe fans".- DubsFan408
by GovernorStephCurry on Aug 17, 2010 4:18 PM PDT up reply actions
He is also
a testament that you actually have to look at the player. The Round Mound of Rebound was far from a consensus first round pick.
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.
The bottom line is do u trust larry riley and his scouting staff. Me personally i have to say yes i do. Looking at the drafting of Steph aswell as the D-League call-ups i trust Larry knows talent. Before the draft he worked out Greg Monroe aswell as most of the lottery picks that was drafted after the 5th pick. If he took Ekpe 6th i trust that he liked what he saw in the workout and the film room.
Yeah I can understand that point of view, particularly when it comes to the draft because it is so hit and miss and hard as heck to guage the talent.
I felt the same way with Petrie this year … but I must admit I would have been more upset if Petrie picked up Udoh ahead of Monroe and Cousins than if he picked Monroe ahead of Udoh and Cousins.
Because talent? You want to add a guy like boozer because hes talented? I’m sorry i just don’t see that as a valid reason. -- fffindeed
by wallywagon11 on Aug 17, 2010 11:16 PM PDT up reply actions
with his steady improvement, you would have to think that he is going to get better
I don’t subscribe to this at all. Players tend to improve based on their age as opposed to how long they’ve been in the NBA. Udoh, while in college, has been going through the part of the aging curve where he SHOULD be improving steadily. That’s what happens with guys his age. Now, he’s at the part of the aging curve where improvements tend to not be that big….
by Missing Barry on Aug 17, 2010 12:12 PM PDT up reply actions
Would you say the same about Kelenna Azubuike?
I know it’s not the same thing, as they both play different positions. But Azu is a guy who is nearly 26 years old now, and he still hasn’t had a “breakout season”. He did considerably improve over those years in all facets of his game, and last season, I think he definitely would have made a name for himself in the NBA. I think he is going to explode in New York. I tend to disagree with you about this so called curve. Players like Jordan, Kobe, they improved areas of their game extensively after the age of 27, when that supposed curve should have begun to eclipse their actual improvement. I think it’s just more unique to the individual. Just my opinion though.
I think Kelenna is what he is. Problem with him as an example is his injury was pretty serious. Counting on him to bounce back at 100% doesn’t seem like the best idea to me – he could bounce back, of course, but he also may not. Even if he does, I expect him to be pretty similar to what he’s shown so far.
I tend to disagree with you about this so called curve
The curve is real, it’s supported by research. That’s not to say every individual follows it exactly. Just look at Steve nash. But it’s what happens, on average. I really don’t think you can show Jordan and Kobe improved in a meaningful way after the age of 27. Improving “areas of their game” isn’t what I’m talking about, I’m talking about overall productivity – as someone like Jordan added to his post game and his jump shot, he was losing athleticism, so it mostly balances out and by 27….almost every player really is at or near their peak.
In general, guys who come into the league at age 23 just don’t improve all that much. Is there any reason to think Udoh will?
by Missing Barry on Aug 18, 2010 7:11 AM PDT up reply actions
Kelenna
was a player that was not very good in college. Look at Azubuike’s numbers in college, and read what scouts have to say about him. My favorite was, “Kelenna looks like Tarzan and plays like Jane.” Not very nice. He went undrafted for a reason. Looking back at the player he was when he was 22 years old, (an older prospect by definition) he was nowhere near the player he was at 25, past the researched curve.
The idea of Jordan and Kobe adding elements to their game past the age of 27, is a reasonable one. Both players went on to improve their status as dominant defenders, their shots continued to be refined, etc. I’m not saying they didn’t lose some of their athleticism, but I don’t think it balances out at all. I would much rather have Kobe Bryant at 29 or even 30 than Kobe at 24. He was significantly better.
I’m not counting on Kelenna bouncing back. I “think” he is going to make a come back and continue to improve is game to the point where the league will undeniably know who he is. I know it seems hard to take this seriously after his injury, but Kelenna is specimen who has not suffered much injury in the past, and has not injured that knee before. I think he’s going to be alright. But yeah, I could be wrong. Its probably a good thing I didn’t put money on it. :)
The idea of Jordan and Kobe adding elements to their game past the age of 27, is a reasonable one.
And they did. I’m not denying that.
but I don’t think it balances out at all. I would much rather have Kobe Bryant at 29 or even 30 than Kobe at 24. He was significantly better.
This is my point. Show me they were significantly better at 30 than at 25. I think if you look at their stats, you’ll be surprised at how close they are at those two points in their career….
Just for the record, I think Kelenna is already a solid player. Good shooter, can score ~17 points a game with starters minutes efficiently, rebounds well, plays alright defense, doesn’t turn it over. I hope he recovers, I always liked him.
by Missing Barry on Aug 18, 2010 7:42 AM PDT up reply actions
Here's the thing
I’m not that big of a stat guru to begin with, and I’m not bashing anybody who is for that matter. I’ve been impressed with what some of those guys have to say. I’m sort of the wrong guy for the job in terms of pulling out every conceivable number that will argue either side. With that said, I’d be glad to watch some games and then give you a final analysis.
Kobe Bryant at 24 was a different player from Kobe at 29 or 30, considerably. If you asked me who I would rather have on my team for a series or even a season, I would take Kobe at 29-30 over Kobe at 24, any day of the week. Are you telling me you would rather have Kobe at 24? I just think you have a player who is more experienced, has honed his skills to perfection, learned the ins and the outs of the game defensively, has experienced success, has experienced failure, and has learned over the years what it takes to win…and what it takes to lose, what not to do.
Since I can’t really prove anything to you by breaking out tremendously intricate stats that supposedly tell the whole story, I lose. You win. :)
Although
the case of Azubuike and as you mentioned, Nash, still seem very strange to me, do they not?
Yeah I would say Nash is somewhat unique but I think it's a little blown out of proportion to be honest.
He was a pretty good college player. I know his overall shooting percentage was pretty darn low; however, it is important to note that half his shots were 3s (although yes I college three point line). The thing with Nash coming out of college was that the I seem to recall the scouts actually really liked him at that point and thought his game would translate to the NBA.
I would point out that Nash was hurt a ton early in his career and it absolutely attributed to some of his early numbers. I personally think he ended up doing quite well once he got healthy.
Seems to me the really strange part would be Dallas to Phoenix. I personally see that as being a situation where the system was perfect for Nash and he was already pretty darn good to begin with. I guess though one could make a great case that the fact he has been healthy and hasn’t dropped off at such an advanced age is strange but I do recall some people saying Nash, despite his injury past and back problems, was the perfect type of player to age well (Seem to recall Hollinger writing an article about point guards who distribute the ball well tend to age really well).
Because talent? You want to add a guy like boozer because hes talented? I’m sorry i just don’t see that as a valid reason. -- fffindeed
by wallywagon11 on Aug 18, 2010 8:23 AM PDT up reply actions
Brevin Knight
is a perfect example of this. He’s survived a long career in the NBA without having a jump shot. No easy task for a player 6 feet tall.
But yeah, players like Azubuike and Carlos Boozer are guys that sort of dispel some of these ideas of a curve that disallows the majority of significant improvement after the age of 24.
I guess I am a little confused. When you talk about unique examples are you talking about examples where scouting saw something that statistics didn't or just simply showing cases where with all this analysis either way people miss?
Because Brevin was drafted 16th. I understand that is fair value for a draft pick but I don’t think anyone really dropped the ball with him. Seems like he was who we thought he was. I suppose unique for a short player to succeed for that long but I don’t think he was necessary not judged accordingly.
With Boozer, to be honest when looking at the stats he seemed to become a pretty darn solid player before leaving Duke. Heck he was good before his senior year, just had to get the rebounding percentage up and (although I can’t find rebounding percentages at the moment) I know his per game and per36 rebounding numbers jumped up his junior year. Seems to be Boozer is an example where someone dropped the ball somewhere because his stats are fairly nice, especially considering he was in such a competive conference.
Either way though, I would agree with you that you obviously can’t just look at stats and I personally put a fair amount of trust in scouts myself.
Because talent? You want to add a guy like boozer because hes talented? I’m sorry i just don’t see that as a valid reason. -- fffindeed
by wallywagon11 on Aug 18, 2010 8:42 AM PDT up reply actions
Brevin Knight
I was really just responding to what you were saying about players who distribute the ball well being able to stay in the league. For a player who was probably not even 6 ft. tall, and didn’t have a jump shot, given the length of his career, it supports the statement you made.
The statement I made about Boozer wasn’t a very good one in terms of consistency, although he translated better than most people thought he would to the NBA, he has been pretty consistent his whole career. In this sense, I find it curious that player who had a good college career in a tough conference went 34th overall, without anyone so much as batting an eye.
When I say guys like Azubuike and Boozer are examples that dispel this curve, I’m not saying that it doesn’t exist. You misunderstood me. I’m saying that you can’t rely on it to dictate why a draft pick is a wise or unwise choice before the pick has even had a chance to play.
Going back to what we were arguing about in the first place, if we used this principle and applied it to the case of Carlos Boozer, and he did in fact have a solid college career, then why was it a popular decision to allow him to slip through the fingers of every team in the NBA, and 4 more times in the second round?
He was a senior, and an old prospect. His improvement should have not been more than marginal, and if his rebounding numbers alone would be believed to translate to the professional level, under this understanding, why wasn’t he chosen earlier despite this curve?
Between the ages of 21-23 Azubuike was a complete unknown. According to the curve, this leaves him 1-2 seasons to become what he’s going to be for the rest of his career.
Last season, with the limited time we saw him play, he was on track for a breakout season.
Is Azubuike really that phenomenal? Is he a player of exceptional talent? No. He was a player who worked extremely hard at improving his game, and continued to do so. This leaves me to believe that players who are naturally blessed with more talent than Kelenna, should be able to do what he did through the same dedication. It also leaves something to be said about relying on something that doesn’t apply to every player. I can’t validate an argument either way through a method that has proven to carry some holes within it. I’m not saying it’s useless, just not completely reliable enough to tell the future of Udoh. Two completely different things here.
I find it curious that player who had a good college career in a tough conference went 34th overall, without anyone so much as batting an eye.
Well, isn’t this the flipside to a player like Udoh going – quite possibly – too high based on workouts rather than actual performance?
Seems to me that you often hear both of these stories: “He had great workouts and shot up the charts … but never really put together his production in the pros” and “It’s hard to understand why he went so low since he was successful at every level of ball he’d played up to that point.”
Obviously, I haven’t done the research see if that’s more than selective hearing on my part, but it seems like tourney and workout phenoms underperform with regularity, and that most late-draft gems are guys who, despite having delivered, fell because of lack of perceived athleticism or size.
Give me – every single time – the guy who actually performed consistently on the court. I think it’s really hard to go wrong if you do that.
If we base
a combination of these factors towards the selection of Udoh, there is actually an explanation. 1) He was not a bad college player – Udoh actually had a solid college career. While he wasn’t considered to be star material, and he didn’t play his junior season, he improved each year. His stats do not tell the complete story. There is no way you can know how much he improved his footwork or jump shot from looking at a stat chart.
If you do look at his basic stats, his numbers are really nothing to scoff at. 14ppg. 10 rpg. 4 bpg. He is not an underachiever. When you can compare his stats to others at his position who may arguably be better, that’s when I think individual and team workouts can be very helpful.
2) It was a very weak draft after the top 5. So yeah, this alone sort of throws things in the air when you’re talking about who deserves to be drafted where. When things are so uncertain, you really have to turn to in depth analysis under the experts who do this year in, and year out.
Remember Julian Wright a few years ago? Remember how popular he was coming in as a prospect? Then he had workouts for teams and his stock completely dropped. Is he a good player?
I’m not saying there’s any sure way to do this. You can’t know for sure how a players going to fare just by looking at his individual workouts, just like you can’t be sure by looking at his college career alone. You can, however, be encouraged by good performances in both of these instances, or just one of them.
Jeremy Lin never had an impressive college career. He wasn’t dominating lesser opponents at Harvard. Yet, some stat is showing us that he has a good shot to make it in the pros. So it’s kind of hard to really pin anything on anyone and doom them because of their age, or workouts, or college career, or any of that. It’s helpful, but it shouldn’t be your little crystal ball you bank on to make decisions for you.
He was not a bad college player – Udoh actually had a solid college career.
He was fine. He wasn’t bad. But for a 22 year old who’s looking to join the NBA, he was pretty uninspiring. He didn’t really do a single thing well other than block shots and pass.
There is no way you can know how much he improved his footwork or jump shot from looking at a stat chart.
Not particularly relevant. Footwork and jumpshots only matter in the outcomes they produce. If improved footwork isn’t leading to more points or rebounds or whatever else, it’s not doing you any good. Same with shooting. That’s not saying they aren’t important aspects of the game, just that they WILL show up in the stats, and if they don’t, you aren’t actually using them in a way that helps your team.
If you do look at his basic stats, his numbers are really nothing to scoff at. 14ppg. 10 rpg. 4 bpg.
Per game numbers don’t tell all that much. You have to control for minutes. He racked up his stats by playing a lot of minutes, as opposed to playing effectively.
Note his minutes played, points per 40, offensive and defensive rebound %’s, and true shooting percentages, and how they compare to his two peers.
When things are so uncertain, you really have to turn to in depth analysis under the experts who do this year in, and year out.
Well, those people should always be a big part in the draft evaluation process….
I’m not saying there’s any sure way to do this
There isn’t, which is exactly the point. You do your homework, and at the end of the day, take the risk you feel is best. I’m not seeing the evidence that rests with an old guy who just wasn’t that good of a college player (relative to other draft picks available to us).
So it’s kind of hard to really pin anything on anyone and doom them because of their age, or workouts, or college career, or any of that. It’s helpful, but it shouldn’t be your little crystal ball you bank on to make decisions for you.
Strawman. If you think that’s what anyone is trying to do, it’s a misunderstanding.
by Missing Barry on Aug 18, 2010 11:02 AM PDT up reply actions
Jeremy Lin never had an impressive college career. He wasn’t dominating lesser opponents at Harvard.
This is nonsense. He scored over 16ppg on something like .637TS% as a senior. Against lesser competition, he had more steals, more than twice as many blocks, and fewer turnovers than “sure thing” John Wall.
I don’t know what you definitions of “impressive” or “dominating” are, but I have a hard time seeing how Lin’s record doesn’t qualify.
There aren’t a lot of games against top programs in there, but the games that are (Uconn, Georgetown, BC) suggest that he wasn’t merely picking on weaker opposition – that he could do it regardless.
For you to say that his college performance isn’t impressive boggles my mind. In nearly every statistical category, he was very very good.
And the whole point of the PAWS stat is to evaluate a guys pro prospects based on his college stats. If Lin wasn’t doing well in college…..the PAWS stat wouldn’t be saying positive things about his prospects for the NBA…..
by Missing Barry on Aug 18, 2010 1:53 PM PDT up reply actions
Jeremy Lin
Turned the ball over almost as much as he assisted players. He averaged 16 points a game. While this is a good average, it’s a stretch to call him a dominate scorer, or that he dominated games with his scoring. He rebounded well and he caused turnovers while averaging a block per game. While his stats were not bad by any stretch, I think it’s equally far fetched to say that he absolutely dominated.
I watched him play at Harvard and he’s always impressed me. Maybe when I said that his college career wasn’t “good” it was a bit of an overstatement. His college career was good, but I think he should make an even better pro. This was more to my point. Once he gets a chance to play at a higher tempo and get out into the open court more, he’s really going to blossom as a player.
Assist to turnover ratio is always a weird stat
His turnovers are lower than John Walls. His assists are lower, too … but that begs an important question:
When a guy is shooting over .630TS%, are you sure you want him passing the ball?
As for whether or not he dominated, well, as I said, that depends on your definition of domination. Being your teams leading shooter and scorer while leading it in assists, and being your team’s third-best rebounder … I mean, what else do you want the guy to do?
And College assist numbers tend to be low.
The systems aren’t assist friendly.
"Everybody loves Basketball-Reference.com. Except the Kobe fans".- DubsFan408
by GovernorStephCurry on Aug 18, 2010 8:16 PM PDT up reply actions
This is true
And College assist numbers tend to be low. The systems aren’t assist friendly.
I do though personally question how good of a distributor Lin is just from seeing him play a little in summer league (yeah obviously not he most reliable thing to base an opinion on). I just got the feeling he is really good at bullying his way to the hoop and scoring (even possibly good enough to do it against NBA talent)
Because talent? You want to add a guy like boozer because hes talented? I’m sorry i just don’t see that as a valid reason. -- fffindeed
by wallywagon11 on Aug 19, 2010 9:40 AM PDT up reply actions
I think Lin is more of a scorer than facilitator.
But in the NBA, if you have good Bball IQ and can get in the lane, all you have to do is dish out to shooters.
"Everybody loves Basketball-Reference.com. Except the Kobe fans".- DubsFan408
by GovernorStephCurry on Aug 19, 2010 2:44 PM PDT up reply actions
I guess
Being Harvard’s 3rd best rebounder isn’t all that impressive to me, given the nature of the talent found on that roster. Hey, 4 rebounds a game is impressive for a guard, but I don’t think it’s noteworthy if you’re going to talk about him being a dominate player. Seven or eight, I’d begin to say he’s touching that territory.
I don’t care how well he’s shooting the ball, yes, I do want him passing the ball if he’s the point guard. Also, the vast majority of his shots taken were off drives and at point blank range! That’s what I love about him! A lot of his turnovers can be accounted for losing the ball in traffic being aggressive, and being caught up in the air with nowhere else to go. It wasn’t necessarily from bad passing.
Like Curry, Jeremy Lin is a vastly underrated passer entering this next level. He has excellent touch and vision on his passes. He will show you.
Well, here's another way of looking at it:
PAWS tries to combine all stats in a way that correlates with wins.
PAWS says Lin had the 7th best stats in all of college basketball.
Again – if that’s not dominating, what is?
Putting arbitrary thresholds like “well, 7 rebounds would be dominating but 4 isn’t” is sort of silly.
Putting arbitrary thresholds like "well, 7 rebounds would be dominating but 4 isn’t" is sort of silly.
I am sure there is a rebounding percentage that is not arbitrary though (of course would have to do some analysis to figure that out but I would think there is one given rebounding translates well)
Because talent? You want to add a guy like boozer because hes talented? I’m sorry i just don’t see that as a valid reason. -- fffindeed
by wallywagon11 on Aug 19, 2010 9:47 AM PDT up reply actions
I don’t care how well he’s shooting the ball, yes, I do want him passing the ball if he’s the point guard. Also, the vast majority of his shots taken were off drives and at point blank range! That’s what I love about him!
I personally question whether he can distribute the ball from the top of the key. I can see him being alright with kick out 3 point shots but I question whether he will ever be able to get a post player the ball down below the hoop for easy buckets. This is largely why I personally think he will likely be a spark plug scoring bench player in this league.
Because talent? You want to add a guy like boozer because hes talented? I’m sorry i just don’t see that as a valid reason. -- fffindeed
by wallywagon11 on Aug 19, 2010 9:43 AM PDT up reply actions
also
John Wall played one season of college ball while Lin played all four. Not a very fair comparison. If anything Compare their rookie seasons.
I don't
really understand the comparison in the first place. Nobody ever said anything about John Wall. If you want to say that Wall’s “the sure thing”, well I think that has more to do with the fact that he’s freakishly fast with the ball, insanely quick, super hops, handles the ball like a young Wade, and can take over a game with these physical talents.
It doesn’t really have much to do with his freshman year as much as it does his obvious potential to make an impact on the next level. Lin does not have this going for him to such an extremity. The comparison makes no sense.
If you want to talk about athleticism or intangibles, that's fine.
But that’s not what you said. You said Lin’s performance wasn’t impressive.
That’s insane.
Uh - so?
John is younger, which menas he should have much more room for improvement.
But that doesn’t mean he performed better last year. You said Lin should have been “impressive” and “dominated” – he was and did. Doesn’t mean he’s going to be a great pro.
I’m curious to see how he does as a rookie, but as I wrote before, Wall is going to be gifted minutes even if he struggles, and Lin could be above average and not get more than 12 a game. So when you judge them, be careful about what stats you used.
I guess I'm saying
that Lin didn’t “dominate” the game in the same sense as say, Steph Curry. For both players who played in schools a little less known for their basketball prestige, I would expect Lin to be dominate. Defenses weren’t scheming Lin, triple teaming him every game. This was the case with Curry, and he still got his.
Lin did have an impressive college career going by the stat you threw up. But in hindsight, if the stats I’m going by are wrong, and actually seeing him play, and if this stat that you’re using as an overall measuring device is a reliable one, then how did Lin manage to go undrafted, and relatively undesired even after proving some things in the summer league?
If he was the “7th most dominate player in college basketball” going by PAWS, then why didn’t virtually anybody recognize him as a dominate player who translates to wins? Surely, this stat is valued by these higher minds, right? Why wasn’t that used accordingly? I still stand by what I said earlier. I’ve always been impressed by Lin. I’ve said this way, way before in other posts. I’m not in the custom of being intrigued by players who have anything less than an “impressive” college career.
I was using it more in context on a grander scale. Should have been much more clear on that. On the other hand, I’ve always kept it in mind that the players he was competing against weren’t that good of players to begin with, given of course a small amount of games where they competed against better teams.
John Wall, you made it seem like the fact that Lin played better his senior year than Wall did his freshman year, actually meant something. It doesn’t. Firstly, Wall could’ve played a lot worse, and still would have been selected in the lottery for his physical prowess alone, and yes, his youth(?). So in my mind, this comparison makes no sense because we’re not even comparing the two players’ performances in the first place! Wall’s value is completely measured by a whole other school of thought that doesn’t apply to 99% of the guys in college ball.
Lin probably could have played even better than he did, and still would’ve had a good chance of not being drafted.
I wouldn't even try to compare college players and their freshman years
I really believe that some great players have a really difficult time figuring things out their first year and college and can improve by leaps and bounds. The thing that sucks is you really don’t know they are great until they actually do it so you will have to lean on the scouting stuff if you are going to bet they really improve.
Basically I am saying that Wall’s freshman stats could very well be underselling his potential or actually show how good he really is and it’s really hard to figure out which way it is.
Because talent? You want to add a guy like boozer because hes talented? I’m sorry i just don’t see that as a valid reason. -- fffindeed
by wallywagon11 on Aug 19, 2010 9:45 AM PDT up reply actions
He averaged 16 points a game. While this is a good average, it’s a stretch to call him a dominate scorer
Maybe when I said that his college career wasn’t "good" it was a bit of an overstatement.
Yeah I think when talking about college players and their stats we need to be careful when throwing adjectives around and focus on what translates well into the pros because it’s so easy to get into a disagreement where we accidentally say things that sound outlandish but it’s not exactly what we mean.
Because talent? You want to add a guy like boozer because hes talented? I’m sorry i just don’t see that as a valid reason. -- fffindeed
by wallywagon11 on Aug 19, 2010 9:38 AM PDT up reply actions
“Not particularly relevant. Footwork and jumpshots only matter in the outcomes they produce. If improved footwork isn’t leading to more points or rebounds or whatever else, it’s not doing you any good. "
It is relevant. Even if your footwork and shot improves dramatically, while you only average one more point a game, it still leaves you with greater tools to build upon on the next level once your confidence rises, and it allows you to play more efficiently.
In other words, Biedrins gets most of his shots off the ball, moving out of screens, cleaning the glass, etc. If Biedrins suddenly came into the league next year with an Al Jefferson post game(just saying), and a Stoudemire jump shot, then not only could he score the way he always has, but he could dispel the pathology of other weaknesses that hindered his game.
After awhile, scoring these new ways and honing the skills will earn the trust of his point guard and coach, and the ball begins to come through his end more frequently. These things take time to develop confidence and chemistry. You can lay down the ground work, but you can’t actually start to construct success and reputation from these skills, until a considerable amount of time and experience has passed. I suspect this is what happened with Azubuike, in regards to the existence of his jump shot after he exited the college level as an “older prospect”.
If Udoh began to develop these skills, it’s a bit unfair to alleviate the time line and due process, and say that an improvement is irrelevant considering “total production”, under the thin helm of one year in college. There is no measuring stick to significantly mark that improvement, yet.
Sorry this is a bit off topic and I don't want to confuse things but just a random observation that really does not pertain to your point.
Remember Julian Wright a few years ago? Remember how popular he was coming in as a prospect? Then he had workouts for teams and his stock completely dropped. Is he a good player?
The funny thing is his stats really were not that impressive. Granted he hardly played much in college so it’s more difficult to lean on his stats versus scouting but I would just point out that his actual performance technically never really dictated him being as valued as he was prior to the draft.
Because talent? You want to add a guy like boozer because hes talented? I’m sorry i just don’t see that as a valid reason. -- fffindeed
by wallywagon11 on Aug 18, 2010 1:56 PM PDT up reply actions
He was a player who worked extremely hard at improving his game, and continued to do so. This leaves me to believe that players who are naturally blessed with more talent than Kelenna, should be able to do what he did through the same dedication.
Yes. I’m not sure how this relates, though?
It also leaves something to be said about relying on something that doesn’t apply to every player.
It applies to the population. You’re trying to play the odds.
I can’t validate an argument either way through a method that has proven to carry some holes within it. I’m not saying it’s useless, just not completely reliable enough to tell the future of Udoh.
Nothing can tell you the future of Udoh. You can’t know the future. The best you can do is use the information available to best play the odds. That’s the point.
if we used this principle and applied it to the case of Carlos Boozer, and he did in fact have a solid college career, then why was it a popular decision to allow him to slip through the fingers of every team in the NBA, and 4 more times in the second round?
He was a senior, and an old prospect. His improvement should have not been more than marginal, and if his rebounding numbers alone would be believed to translate to the professional level, under this understanding, why wasn’t he chosen earlier despite this curve?
Boozer entered the league as a junior when he was 20. That’s not old. He was also a productive player as a rookie. I think the talent evaluators clearly evaluated him wrong. It’s one thing to not realize a guy will or won’t develop, it’s another if his talent from the beginning doesn’t match what the scouts thought. In those cases, I think it’s pretty clear the evaluators missed.
by Missing Barry on Aug 18, 2010 10:53 AM PDT up reply actions
what he said
No clue why they missed (maybe fear of injury? fear he was not tall enough? he’s a jerk?) but he seemd to perform pretty well in college, at least enough to be a mid first rounder I would think.
Because talent? You want to add a guy like boozer because hes talented? I’m sorry i just don’t see that as a valid reason. -- fffindeed
by wallywagon11 on Aug 18, 2010 1:58 PM PDT up reply actions
The “book” on Boozer was that he had been a college center who was going to have to play PF, where he’d have no real size advantage and his “athleticism” was in the tank. He fared not well in the combines, showing himself to be not terribly fast and not much stronger than Dunleavy. This all spiraled to a negative opinion of his “NBA potential”. There was nothing overly “special” about him either athletically or in terms of his college performance that would get scouts excited to build counter momentum. A certain amount of momentum builds behind such an assessment and it takes a life of its own. Guys with similar heights/backgrounds may not be stuck with the same negative perception for reasons that aren’t altogether clear save that something caught someone’s eye and it spread.
I can’t look it up right now but I am pretty sure that Boozer was actually a junior and pretty young for his class and I honestly don’t understand how he was drafted so late but I find it puzzling.
Because talent? You want to add a guy like boozer because hes talented? I’m sorry i just don’t see that as a valid reason. -- fffindeed
by wallywagon11 on Aug 18, 2010 1:54 PM PDT up reply actions
that disallows the majority of significant improvement after the age of 24
By no means does it disallow it. It’s just a population trend. It’s like saying “most Swedish people have blonde hair” (I don’t know if that’s true or not). It doesn’t rule out a Swedish person having brown hair. It just means you should make your bet on a Swedish person having blonde hair. And honestly, Boozer has been basically the same player for his entire tenure on the Jazz. He really fits the curve very, very well….
by Missing Barry on Aug 18, 2010 8:43 AM PDT up reply actions
see above, sorry
So based on a population trend that doesn’t appear to be completely reliable, we’re already reducing Udoh to be a “bad pick”. I guess the allegiance of our wariness falls on different platforms. But I would be wary of basing assumptions on a player’s future from a trend that has proven to have been breeched on many occasions throughout the history of the sport.
It’s kind of silly to dispute otherwise. I’m obviously not going to research for 6 hours and come back with an entire list of people who have conquered the curve. If my unwillingness to do this means that I “lose”, then I’d happily withdraw with such a title.
So based on a population trend that doesn’t appear to be completely reliable, we’re already reducing Udoh to be a "bad pick".
Anecdotes don’t make a trend unreliable. They indicate that it is not universal to every single individual in the sample, but a trend never implies that it is entirely universal.
jae
If a trend implies that it is not entirely universal, then why is Udoh being considered a failure on Riley’s behalf before playing in a single game? If you scroll up, that’s what the argument was about in the first place, whether or not you find it relevant to this discussion. On the other hand, I do. It’s not so much I don’t believe in the trend, because I do, it’s more about me coming to terms with saying a player is good or bad before knowing, based on a trend. It really just sort of ends there. I can’t prove what Udoh is going to be more than you can, so it’s hard to call it a “failure.” At the same time, I never went out of my way to call it a “success”. Just one of those things that remains to be seen no matter what tools you may have to peak into the future. I know, it sucks.
http://www.goldenstateofmind.com/2010/8/16/1625549/should-lacob-and-guber-replace#44592537
Has anyone called Udoh a failure? I’m calling him a bad pick. There’s a difference.
by Missing Barry on Aug 18, 2010 11:07 AM PDT up reply actions
Sort of my point
you’re basing your label of him as a bad pick (therefore a failure on Riley’s part) on trends and statistics, while he hasn’t played a game. My whole point in the first place, is that some players do not fall into these trends squarely enough to form predictions just based on age. Just a bit unfair. I’m not saying you can’t be skeptical, go right ahead. But unquestionably, the jury is still out.
you’re basing your label of him as a bad pick (therefore a failure on Riley’s part) on trends and statistics, while he hasn’t played a game.
I think you’re disagreeing on the term “bad pick”. If odds favor a poor outcome, it can be judged as a bad pick. Playing favorable odds is the smart move. Taking a longshot gamble when there are better risk / reward projections makes something a bad pick. Now the parameters go into that risk/reward model are many. It takes more than just age, but given that it’s less likely that a player of Udoh’s age will improve significantly, there needs to be other factor(s) that suggest that the extended model is better and that with more parameters considered, the risk/reward was better than other choices.
Whether or no Udoh in particular is a failure as a player is a different issue than whether the decision to pick him was the wise one. Longshots can pay off and smart investments can fail. This doesn’t make a longshot less of a longshot.
In regards to improvement
It takes more than just age, but given that it’s less likely that a player of Udoh’s age will improve significantly.
I think the trend of 18 to 22 year old rookie prospects says less about older prospects being less likely to improve and more about how young prospects have all kinds of crazy potential to fall on their face or absolutely blow up. There have been some freshman college guys who did little compared to their peeers in college and absolutely blew up in the pros. For whatever reason (maybe it’s just hard for some 18 year players to adjust at that age) they can really blow up and often the guys who do are guys the scouts were talking about.
This doesn’t happen as often with seniors. What i mean to say is, it is more likely that Udoh the last year in college (Lin too by the way) is likely to be the about the same guy when he is in the NBA so you have to ask whether what he does right now translates. I think it is fair to ask whether it does or not. If someone absolutely blew it up their senior year and did well in stats the translate really well then heck yeah they are going to be a good prospect just from what we have already seen. With younger guys, its much more of a crap shoot, for better and for worse.
Because talent? You want to add a guy like boozer because hes talented? I’m sorry i just don’t see that as a valid reason. -- fffindeed
by wallywagon11 on Aug 18, 2010 2:13 PM PDT up reply actions
Its a bad pick
unless he’s a good player. If the decision to pick him was made because Riley recognized him as a good player, it’s hard to say how much of a gamble he was taking. Again, we will just have to see.
Basically, I’m saying it’s a bad pick because of the player I expect Udoh to be, which is heavily based on what he was in college. If you pick a 23 year old #6 overall, he better be a pretty good player right now. I also acknowledge that the Warriors know more than I do, so maybe they’ve seen that he’s a better player than I think. We will see. If he ends up being what I think he will, a meh rebounder who doesn’t score much or efficiently, who really only brings a bit of on ball defense and then shotblocking and passing…..then I believe it was not a good choice.
by Missing Barry on Aug 18, 2010 11:49 AM PDT up reply actions
If a trend implies that it is not entirely universal, then why is Udoh being considered a failure on Riley’s behalf before playing in a single game?
People are hypothesizing. I know I can end up very wrong on what I think Udoh will do but I think I am looking at the evidence and the indicators correctly. We’ll see but I think it is fair to give a reasoned opinion and it will be exciting to see what correlates and what doesn’t
(I must admit, I am not looking at age per say but looking more at what Udoh does compared to other 4 year college prospects who entered into the NBA prior to him with similar skill set and similar accomplishments).
Because talent? You want to add a guy like boozer because hes talented? I’m sorry i just don’t see that as a valid reason. -- fffindeed
by wallywagon11 on Aug 18, 2010 2:07 PM PDT up reply actions
I think our future owner, Joe Lacob, sums up what my point is well:
-Q I understand you play some poker. Does some of that strategy blend into running an NBA franchise? What do you like about poker?
-LACOB: I’m in the venture capital business and have been for 25 years. We do a lot of diligence and a lot of assessing of things. We do our homework. We’re analytical. But in the end, you’re starting businesses when there’s a lot of unknowns when you do start-ups. No matter how much analysis you do, there’s always going to be things you don’t know.
And what makes somebody good at this business, vs. somebody not good, is the ability to take risk. Calculated risk. And to be OK with that. To be a gambler, to some extent.
I think that yes, I like poker. I like the idea… of calculated risk. Doing my homework, and then you have to take a shot. You learn a lot in poker about people. Phil Hellmuth is a good friend of mine and you learn a lot about people when you play that game.
And by the way, venture capital, sort of similar. You’re making a calculated risk on whether you’re going to put your money on this company or put your money with this person. You have to be comfortable with unknowns.
I think this is al the same thing. This is another level, another game. The business of running a basketball team, there are some things you have to analyze and assess. Do your homework. And then, when you bring on certain players, you’re taking on a little bit of a gamble. They’re human beings, they’re not robots. You don’t know how they’re going to react and play together. You don’t know how the coach is going manage that group of players.
But you can be smart about the architecture and get all the pieces in the right places, and then you’ve got take your shot. Sometimes you have to take a risk.
So I kind of view it all as a little bit of a chess game, right? It’s no different. Just different levels. It’s easier actually in the NBA—there are more knowns than there are at a poker table and there’s more knowns at a poker table, frankly, than there are in venture capital.
That’s the mentality you have. The aging curve is just one variable at play here to be taken into account. Ultimately, the team needs to assess all the “knowns”, and maximize their value and minimize their risk, knowing some things are just uncertain. It’s hard to tell if a guy will end up on the over or under side of the aging curve (though there’s certainly some evaluation you can do like his work ethic). What I can tell you, is on average, a guy who isn’t all that good a college player, who’s ALSO older than his peers, will, on average, be not that good. Those are two strong points I see against Udoh. It would take something pretty impressive about him to overcome that, I think. Maybe the Warriors see something about him (like an unmatched work ethic) that makes up for it, I don’t know for sure, but I worry their general strategy/talent evaluation is off in this case. It happens.
by Missing Barry on Aug 18, 2010 10:37 AM PDT up reply actions
I can see how
you liken it to Lacob’s poker analogy, and there is iron in his words. I agree that there is calculated risk involved in assessing talent. On many levels, the Warriors have taken that risk on Udoh. The age play is definitely a factor, but what about the others? Some players do very well in the NBA who were not that great in college. Like the age curve, this is also a trend that has withstood the test of time.
I agree that luck is the residue of design, and though picking the older player all the time because they’re experienced is an F’d up stratagem, I believe this pick was unique in it’s context given the depth of the draft, and the state of the franchise.
I can confidently guess that Riley isn’t going to take the easy way out when selecting talent. You might say “Sure, like that time he traded away our best prospect for a proven, mature talent.” I couldn’t argue with you if you said that. But I liked that move, and it had plenty of risk in it’s own respect. Riley’s shown some nuts, and I don’t think he’s going to be lazy with his evaluations just for the sake of fulfilling cookie cutter ideals and keeping his job.
Haha, you seem like you are Lacob's clone.
"Everybody loves Basketball-Reference.com. Except the Kobe fans".- DubsFan408
by GovernorStephCurry on Aug 18, 2010 2:42 PM PDT up reply actions
Or maybe....
just maybe… Missing Barry is (gasp!!) Joe Lacob!!!
DUN-DUN-DUUUUHHHH (meant to be bad whodunit reveal music)
Golden State Warriors '10-'11 Season: The Return of ^^^^
So based on a population trend that doesn’t appear to be completely reliable, we’re already reducing Udoh to be a "bad pick".
I would like to point out that trend actually is not completely reliable but I think it helps one make an educated guess. It’s better than just saying “This guy will improve because I saw improvement.”
Don’t get me wrong, if someone can actually show unbiased evidence of such improvement and it makes some sense given the player’s physical make up (are they now fully recovered from a pre-existing injury that has bothered them for awhile? did they actually really improve their jump shot? have they made a “Paul Pierce” type defensive turn-around?) then then you got a solid reason to think they probably will not start dropping off for a few years and may peak a little later or at the very least not drop off significantly and stay about the same awhile longer.
This isn’t perfect, it will never be 100% right. I would argue there is no way to get it 100% right and at least there is a scientific method being applied. (I should note I think scouting is also very important in all this since it helps at least explain the “why”)
Because talent? You want to add a guy like boozer because hes talented? I’m sorry i just don’t see that as a valid reason. -- fffindeed
by wallywagon11 on Aug 18, 2010 2:04 PM PDT up reply actions
I would argue there is no way to get it 100% right
Random variation happens. You can never be 100% right.
by Missing Barry on Aug 18, 2010 2:26 PM PDT up reply actions
But yeah, players like Azubuike and Carlos Boozer are guys that sort of dispel some of these ideas of a curve that disallows the majority of significant improvement after the age of 24.
You are using anecdote to try to counter a wider observation. This is faulty reasoning. A couple of anecdotal data points does not dispel the notion that a general curve exists for the majority.
yeah for some reason I didn't pay enough attention to that sentence
Yeah I think a lot of people get concerned that the stat crowd is in essence capping a player’s potential, as in “he can’t improve because he is 27 and he we will thus drop in the curve.” That’s really not what they are saying, it’s just probability.
I personally haven’t put much effort in researching this specific stat but I will say this: If a 27 year old player has given ample reason to suggest they are trending up in this category, it might be a good idea to at least look at whether they actually are going to trend upwards still. That would be very relevant in trying to project that player (I would think just as relevant or probably even more relevant than the age curve thing). When I look at Nash’s career, he seems like the perfect guy to trend up given he was viewed as a very talented player when younger but kept getting injured. He seemed to finally get healthy and start improving (talking about the improvement while at Dallas not Pheonix which I think is a separate beast in it’s own). As for Azbukie, I would think he is going to trend downward personally if that injury is going to linger.
Because talent? You want to add a guy like boozer because hes talented? I’m sorry i just don’t see that as a valid reason. -- fffindeed
by wallywagon11 on Aug 18, 2010 9:12 AM PDT up reply actions
Nash is an extremely unusual case. Again, let’s just remember, it’s just a population trend. There will be outliers. I don’t think Azubuike is that unusual. Maybe he improved more than most in between college and the pros, but that improvement did come at the age players improve the most, and I think he’s started to flatten out…..typical development path, even if the slope isn’t as typical.
by Missing Barry on Aug 18, 2010 8:40 AM PDT up reply actions
Kobe Bryant at 24 was a different player from Kobe at 29 or 30, considerably.
Different, definitely, but I look at the stats because they tell me the end results. Kobe at 24 might score in entirely different ways from a more refined 30 year old Kobe, but what matters is….how much did he score, and how efficiently? And while he might be going about it completely differently, the point is the end result is similar…..
by Missing Barry on Aug 18, 2010 8:39 AM PDT up reply actions
Okay, so are we arguing
that a player is unable to refine and “improve” his skills (shooting, passing, defense, etc.) past the curve, or are we arguing that his game “may” improve, while his athleticism collapses. Are we talking about the decline of a players physical adaptation, or are we talking about improving skills? You lost me.
You’re basically saying yes, Kobe or whoever can improve their skills past the curve, but they’re really not improving because their getting too old to run as fast and jump as high, correct? Which is it?
If you’re talking about this in terms of losing athletic ability, then what is the difference between a 24-year-old’s athletic ability, compared to someone who’s 26, past the curve? Is it that big of a difference?
You’re basically saying yes, Kobe or whoever can improve their skills past the curve, but they’re really not improving because their getting too old to run as fast and jump as high, correct? Which is it?
Both.
Players add skills, but adding skills is, for the most part, just slowing down the decline in performance.
eg, if you look at MJ"s career, you see a clear peak in production in the late 80s, early 90s, which was clearly tapering off by the last two championship years for the Bulls. It actually looks like it was tailing off by the third champsionship (age 30), but got a little bump from the sabaticcal.
On the other hand, late carer Jordan clearly had some skills that early- and mid-career Jordan didn’t. He added range to his jumper over his career, and added that brutal low-post turnaround/fadeaway.
So both statements are true: Jordan added skills, but his production declined due to declining physical gifts, which, after age 30, declned faster than he could add new skills.
We’re talking about total production. Lots and lots of things go into your output as a basketball player. Some things get worse, some get better over time. If you look at a graph of a players total production, almost all their improvement comes in their late teens/early 20’s. Once they’re in their mid-20’s, they’ve more or less plateau’ed. That doesn’t mean they aren’t adding things to their game or changing themselves as a player, just that their end results are staying pretty close to the same.
Check out this post:
by Missing Barry on Aug 18, 2010 10:46 AM PDT up reply actions
Thanks for the article Barry
Pretty interesting stuff. I’m open to learning about these stats. I’m really all for probability and taking that into account. I do that every day of my life. Again, the only thing I have a problem with is not giving someone a shot. If Udoh can block shots, rebound, and play decently on the offensive end, it would be unfair to call it a bad pick. I will agree it wasn’t the best. Not the player I would’ve chosen. I’m looking forward to seeing him play.
And I think I do acknowledge in my comment I linked to elsewhere that I’ll give him a shot. For all I know he’s going to come in and be better than I thought – something the Warriors knew from their evaluation. My take is this: basically, to be a good pick, he either has to develop into a very good defensive player overall, or he has to be one of the most productive rookies in his class. If either of those happens, I have no problem admitting the Warriors were right in their evaluation and I was mistaken.
by Missing Barry on Aug 18, 2010 11:25 AM PDT up reply actions
He's got a good shot
at being a “very good defensive player overall”. Game stats, combine stats, physical measurements, approach and mentality of the game, all support this possibility. I don’t know anything. I’m just saying he’s got a shot. Going all the way back to J-Ridah’s comment on “name one thing riley did that was bad”. You said Udoh. It didn’t really sound like you were giving him a shot back then.
He has a shot, I don’t think it’s likely, though. He played zone at Baylor, so I think his on ball D will take a decent amount of work. As I initially said, he’s going to need to rebound well to be a very good defensive player, something his college stats don’t indicate he’ll do (and rebounding translates very, very well from college to NBA). Finally, his measurements are fine, but they aren’t amazing or anything. He’s a bit on the shorter side, his wingspan is good (not great, but good), but his standing reach is pretty average. He’s got good but not exceptional athleticism. I see a lot to overcome to be a complete defensive player. He can already protect the rim, but that’s not enough.
by Missing Barry on Aug 18, 2010 11:54 AM PDT up reply actions
Udoh is an unpopular pick
I’m not going to even try justifying why Udoh was chosen.
However, it’s not fair to hold a GM accountable for making a bad pick when the next season hasn’t even started. You need Udoh to fail before you call the pick bad.
Yeah but I think it's fair to be skeptical.
Because talent? You want to add a guy like boozer because hes talented? I’m sorry i just don’t see that as a valid reason. -- fffindeed
by wallywagon11 on Aug 17, 2010 10:59 AM PDT up reply actions
It's fair to be skeptical
with every draft choice, excluding the top 3-5 picks in the lottery. In a broader sense, I really don’t think it’s fair to be overly skeptical, and chalk it up as a definite mark in the loss column under Riley’s name.
I just thought that Missing Barry was just saying he didn't like the move
I know the question was “Can anybody tell me 1 move that Riley has made that was bad?” but I think it is reasonable for people to think the question was basically what moves has Riley made that you disagree with.
Because talent? You want to add a guy like boozer because hes talented? I’m sorry i just don’t see that as a valid reason. -- fffindeed
by wallywagon11 on Aug 17, 2010 11:38 AM PDT up reply actions
Yep, that was just my intention, to answer your question. :)
by Missing Barry on Aug 17, 2010 12:07 PM PDT up reply actions
One more point with regards to Riley, he’s commented before on how he tries to target experienced, older college guys in the draft. It worked out as well as possible with Curry. Much kudos to him for that move. It’s a loser strategy, though. All the evidence suggests it’s a poor draft strategy. Now that’s he’s followed up with another older guy in Udoh, I do really believe that’s his strategy. It’s not one I want my GM following.
by Missing Barry on Aug 17, 2010 12:09 PM PDT up reply actions
although the obvious drawback in that strategy is you may miss out on the young phenom who blows up, you usually do get a more physically mature player who might be overall more productive over the course of the relatively inexpensive rookie contract
it will be interesting to see how much better AR gets with more PT and playing alongside Amare in NY, and how much he gets paid in his next negotiation – though he showed flashes here, we didn’t get as much out of him as might have expected (due to injuries yes, but also maturation process)
"It’s frickin’ Sisyphean to be a Warriors Fan."
I think the drawback is simply limiting your options really
Heck if a GM drafted experienced, older college guys who are simply better prospects than the other younger guys then I think it’s awesome. I personally like the general idea of Riley’s approach is fine I just hope he is a little flexible.
Because talent? You want to add a guy like boozer because hes talented? I’m sorry i just don’t see that as a valid reason. -- fffindeed
by wallywagon11 on Aug 17, 2010 12:46 PM PDT up reply actions
Heck if a GM drafted experienced, older college guys who are simply better prospects than the other younger guys then I think it’s awesome
Sure, Curry was a good move, and I think our staff saw his talent. You should never let a general trend rule a player out who may really just be the best choice. The problem is, the research I’ve seen shows pretty stronly that the young guys are the better prospects because they end up being better players, on average. Not sure if what I’ve seen addresses hardcore’s point about value for the team that drafted them, though.
by Missing Barry on Aug 17, 2010 1:03 PM PDT up reply actions
When I say older college guys who are simply better prospects I didn’t mean they had better stats than the freshman college players. I meant that for their age they are way up there in terms of their production (that Junior is doing what a great Junior college player should do and then a ton more)
Because talent? You want to add a guy like boozer because hes talented? I’m sorry i just don’t see that as a valid reason. -- fffindeed
by wallywagon11 on Aug 17, 2010 1:20 PM PDT up reply actions
young guys vs. old guys
It’s way too early to really assign Riley to any concrete methods concerning the draft. He’s only been responsible for two. Curry was not so much of an obvious choice as he is now, but it seems our management was really trusting him to turn out to be the player he is today. Nelson was especially high on Curry and regardless of whether or not Riley was, it’s safe to say that the pick can be pinned to more than one man. So really, this is Riley’s only draft.
I can see Riley’s logic behind the Udoh drafting. After dropping to 6, we were thrown into a strange pool of players. The lesser prospects were actually projected to go higher, while the high ceiling guys with more potential, were projected to fall towards the tail end of the first round.
In other words, Riley may have liked a guy better than Udoh who was slated to go 29, but we all know what kind of initial reaction he would’ve gotten for that, and we most definitely know what kind of reaction he would’ve received if that player turned out to be a bust, which happens all the time in the draft, even to good GMs. What would you do if popular crowds were shouting below for you to pick a man (Monroe) who you personally had no faith in, to improve your team? Would you do it?
I think the Warriors should have selected Paul George. Although Wright is now a more experienced version of basically the exact same player, I thought George was the better selection. That said, I think I know why Riley went with Udoh. Based on the fact that it’s obvious the Warriors worked out Ekpe and liked what they saw, we can arrange that knowledge to also point out that Ekpe went from being a top 20 prospect, to a top 10 prospect within a month’s time.
When you add Ekpe’s climb + age + position + need + firsthand impression through work outs, I can see riley’s intent on bringing him in over Monroe, lower draft picks with higher ceilings and higher bust potentials for a guy who is more solid, while satisfying the needs aforementioned. This is Riley’s first draft in a very unstable and extremely unlucky one. I think he just wanted to be safe while improving the team. I don’t think there’s any noticeable trend, and I have faith that he’d pick a much younger player if he was certain in his mind that the player would turn out to be productive over an older, experienced one.
It’s way too early to really assign Riley to any concrete methods concerning the draft. He’s only been responsible for two.
Definitely, two picks alone isn’t enough to draw any conclusions. It’s that he’s stated his philosophy, and it matches up with those picks….
Honestly, I was extremely not excited about Cole Aldrich, but I probably would have rather had him. A year and a half younger. Better rebounder (higher offensive rebound% and much higher defensive rebound%). Actually blocked shots at a higher rate. Supposed to be a good defender overall. Scored at a slightly higher rate (really the same rate) but much more efficiently….and I was really not a fan of the thought of picking Aldrich. Yeah, it sucks that we missed out on the clear cut top 5 prospects, but guys like George (I actually never researched him at all but you guys like him so that’s good enough for me!), Aminu (if he could play 3), Monroe (lots of potential there), Aldrich….there were better options.
I have faith that he’d pick a much younger player if he was certain in his mind that the player would turn out to be productive over an older, experienced one
I have no doubt about that, I’m just concerned that he hasn’t done the research to see, on average, which ends up being the better player. I could see it being easy to fall into the trap of picking a guy who’s a better player now because you can see he’s a better player now instead of the guy who ends up being better….
by Missing Barry on Aug 18, 2010 7:21 AM PDT up reply actions
How do you use the blue highlighting?
“It’s that he’s stated his philosophy, and it matches up with those picks…”
I’m not sure I would assign this either, as his “philosophy” as much as I would a reactive explanation to give reasons and samplings of why he did what he did. Again, I also wouldn’t give Riley as much due credit as I’d like to, for selecting Curry. I think that was Nelson’s pick just as much as it was Riley’s. I really think that the Udoh pick had nothing to do with Nelson at all. This was Riley going off on his own and making a decision. He should only be credited with one choice.
Ah you want to know how to blockquote
In order to blockquote you need to throw up a bq. before a paragraph. Here are some examples (and just letting you know, when you first try it, click the preview button before you post because it will show the actual blue block quote)
This is doing it right
bq.This is doing it wrong (no space inbetween)
You can block quote more than one paragraph at one time. That is if you want to.
You just need press RETURN and then put a SPACE between the two paragraphs and then hit RETURN again.
If you don’t put the SPACE between the two paragraphs …
you get a dangling blurb hanging out on it’s own.
Because talent? You want to add a guy like boozer because hes talented? I’m sorry i just don’t see that as a valid reason. -- fffindeed
by wallywagon11 on Aug 18, 2010 8:28 AM PDT up reply actions
I highlight the text I want to blockquote, and press the little blue quotations button.
I also remember Riley’s statement about preferring older, experienced college players coming before the pick – at least before the Udoh pick, and maybe before the Curry pick, too – though I don’t remember exactly when I saw it.
by Missing Barry on Aug 18, 2010 8:45 AM PDT up reply actions
I'll also say this again
While comparing Aldrich to Udoh based on their college careers, and gathering a conclusion that “Since Cole was better in college and I was still not a fan of his, I’m definitely not a fan of Udoh who is a comparatively worse player” still has it’s flaws.
1) Cole stayed at relatively the same area of projection (10-15) in the months heading up to the draft. Udoh on the other hand, improved his status dramatically (20-25) to top 10, during extremely detailed evaluation before numerous experts and NBA teams. This is very convincing to me, in terms of awarding Udoh a chance to show me what he showed those GM’s and their posses.
2) Many pros in the NBA right now who are coveted by other teams including ours, never really shined in college. They weren’t bad, but they didn’t shine nonetheless. There is a very long list of those guys.
I’m not saying it’s wrong to evaluate a player solely on his college career, because without that, you’d soon run out of measuring sticks for this early stage. However, I think people underestimate and make the mistake of alleviating the process these players go through during the months before the draft where they have to be just as competitive, if not more so, as they are on the college level.
Well my conclusion is that Cole is better at the skills we drafted Udoh for. I’m much more skeptical of workouts for sample size reasons. You see a guy play great a couple of times….well, that’s great, but anyone can play great over a two workout period. You have to be able to consistently perform. For guys playing similarly high levels of competition in college (Kansas and Baylor both Big 12) – why wouldn’t their college production in certain areas tell us about their relative skills? Workouts can give you a better idea on a player who played a different competition level, definitely, and also highlight things like work ethic, or skills a player might have developed that they didn’t get to showcase in college, so it has it’s uses, but I’m just wary of people that read too much into them. I also don’t like looking at change in draft stock, because really, who knows where a guy is going to get drafted before the whole process has played out? I’m confident guys who are bigger names will initially be higher than they should be while lesser names are lower than they should be. It could be a reflection of a guy impressing, but it could also just be the result of NBA teams going through their evaluation process and finally getting around to watching all the film on certain guys or whatever else.
by Missing Barry on Aug 18, 2010 8:51 AM PDT up reply actions
And we all remember how good Yi was when being guarded by a chair…. ;)
by Missing Barry on Aug 18, 2010 8:52 AM PDT up reply actions
lol
Yeah, poor little guy, never quite shook out for him. Although if you’ve ever actually watched a workout, it’s a lot more intense than just chair drills. But I know you were joking;)
I also know what you mean about comparing Udoh and Aldrich for similar skills that we needed. The thing I’m saying, is that during these workouts, while yes, you’re only seeing him work out twice as an individual group, you have to keep in mind that the guy’s going to skip town the next day and do the same thing for another team. It’s a never ending cycle of workouts that go on and on for a significant period of time.
The workouts actually vary greatly from your basic running drill, to full scrimmages. A tremendous variety of work outs, a tremendous amount of them, all under a fairly short time capsule. These are the best college sports has to offer going head to head and they’re competing for a shot at a dream.
While refraining from any possibility of labeling this the “end all” for all evaluation purposes, I’m still intrigued to learn that Udoh climbed so dramatically during this time, facing this competition.
“Who knows where they’re going to end up in the first place” this is true to an extent, but it’s also not. Scouts hired by NBA teams are a very close knit group that work together many times when it comes to gaining an idea about a player. It was no secret that Udoh was not a big name that was associated with the lottery. Everybody would agree on that. It was between this convention that Udoh’s stock was lifted significantly. While I’m not arguing a player should “only” be drafted by this understanding, its still very encouraging nonetheless, and shouldn’t be underestimated. Something I, personally, would be very wary of omitting value.
1) Cole stayed at relatively the same area of projection (10-15) in the months heading up to the draft. Udoh on the other hand, improved his status dramatically (20-25) to top 10, during extremely detailed evaluation before numerous experts and NBA teams. This is very convincing to me, in terms of awarding Udoh a chance to show me what he showed those GM’s and their posses.
Here’s the flip side to this:
Based on a large sample size against real players trying to win games, Udoh was medicore. But he was good in workouts, so his stock rose.
Putting workouts over actual games is one my biggest pet peeves in drafting.
I don't advocate drafting bad college players
There’s yet another flip side, though.
I equally wouldn’t feel good drafting a player who played well on a winning team, who performed badly during workouts.
I think
he and Amare are going to get along absolutely horribly. I think they are going to hate each other. Amare is somewhat of an attention whore when it comes to offense, and I have a very hard time imagining him sharing the post with Randolph, who sort of shares some of the same characteristics with Stoude. I have an equally hard time imagining Randolph playing small forward. Turn over machine. I think this is going to be reminiscent of Ewing/Mason for New York fans. It was a horrible idea to pair those guys together, they will destroy themselves soon enough.
BTW, I don’t hope this, I honestly believe it’s going to happen.
Well Cousins is really freaking good. If he picked someone like Udoh over Cousins, that’s a fireable offense….
by Missing Barry on Aug 18, 2010 7:22 AM PDT up reply actions
I was pissed
when Cousins was taken before us and we picked Udoh. Cousins was essentially the Warriors’ pick. I’ve recently warmed up to the idea of Udoh after doing a little bit of research. I don’t think he’ll be a bad player. I also don’t think he won’t be as good as some of the guys chosen after him. Frankly, some of those picks were just a bit more obscure for a 6th over all selection (even more so than Udoh). I don’t think Lacob is overly excited about Udoh, either. We’ll just have to see how he plays.
Honestly, Udoh looks like he’s going to be the second coming of Turiaf to me.
by Missing Barry on Aug 18, 2010 7:43 AM PDT up reply actions
I'm fine with that.
I’d be more than happy if Udoh becomes the next Turiaf. I subconsciously already considered him a replacement after the New York deal went down. Although, besides Turiaf’s defense, I don’t think anybody in the league can replace what he does in a locker room. I’ve sit down during a game and just watched him through the glasses for about half a quarter. The guy’s enthusiasm is remarkable. I’ve never seen that passion from anybody. It’s not one of those things you just look at and go, “aw thats nice”, it really makes a difference.
I do think Udoh is a better offensive player than Turiaf. His ability to catch the ball alone is already better.
You don't use the 6th pick in the draft on Turiaf.
"Everybody loves Basketball-Reference.com. Except the Kobe fans".- DubsFan408
by GovernorStephCurry on Aug 18, 2010 2:48 PM PDT up reply actions
Just because I know it's coming ... you don't use the 6th pick in the draft on Turiaf
… unless there aren’t any better options available.
And yes, I would argue there were better options available. My spider senses were tingling a bit when reading your comment Gov so I figured I might as well through this inane comment up now versus later.
Because talent? You want to add a guy like boozer because hes talented? I’m sorry i just don’t see that as a valid reason. -- fffindeed
by wallywagon11 on Aug 18, 2010 2:55 PM PDT up reply actions
throw
Because talent? You want to add a guy like boozer because hes talented? I’m sorry i just don’t see that as a valid reason. -- fffindeed
by wallywagon11 on Aug 18, 2010 2:56 PM PDT up reply actions
Thanks for the correction.
But it’s almost guaranteed you can do better than Turiaf with the 6th pick.
"Everybody loves Basketball-Reference.com. Except the Kobe fans".- DubsFan408
by GovernorStephCurry on Aug 18, 2010 7:03 PM PDT up reply actions
If Udoh
can become a dominate shot blocker in the league, crash the glass consistently, and improve his offense, he may not look so bad. There was nobody available that I was absolutely dying to have. I liked Paul George. Aminu didn’t impress me, and I don’t like Monroe. Who are some players you would’ve wanted the Warriors to take at 6?
It was said that Detroit was going to draft Udoh at 7 if the Warriors took Monroe. I find that interesting.
Me either.
"Everybody loves Basketball-Reference.com. Except the Kobe fans".- DubsFan408
by GovernorStephCurry on Aug 18, 2010 8:17 PM PDT up reply actions
But here's the problem,
Udoh doesn’t appear like he will rebound that well.
I think he is going to be a lower volume, harder worker of Rasheed Wallace. And what i mean is, a great post defender, and pretty shoddy everywhere else.
"Everybody loves Basketball-Reference.com. Except the Kobe fans".- DubsFan408
by GovernorStephCurry on Aug 18, 2010 8:17 PM PDT up reply actions
You need Udoh to fail before you call the pick bad.
I’m not so sure about that. It depends on the circumstances. No matter how much homework you do, no matter how good your talent evaluation is, there are some things out of your control, so the key is to seperate those things and try to judge the process – if you simply judge the results, you’re going to end up with a luck factor in there that you don’t want. At the same time, though, if we all realize we’re armchair GM’s/scouts and just don’t know nearly as much about the pick and player as the guys making the decision, we’ll also realize that the results probably do contain lots of stuff they knew that we didn’t, so it’s a balance. With Udoh, I’d probably say we should look at the results since he’s a mature 23 year old player entering the league. He should be ready to be productive right now, if he isn’t, it was unquestionably a bad pick.
I’ll save most of my thoughts for a Fanpost I’m planning to make that should touch on the subject, but the important points I want to make are this – 1.) I’m calling beforehand that it was a bad pick (since it’s never fair to use hindsight the GM didn’t have against him. 2.) My big problem with Udoh is his combination of age and lack of performance. If you really have solid NBA talent, by the time you’re 23, you should be absolutely killing college players. 3.) The only way I see Udoh being a solid player is if he’s a very good defensive player. His blocked shots are a start, but he’ll need more than that – good on ball defense, and good rebounding, too.
by Missing Barry on Aug 17, 2010 12:06 PM PDT up reply actions
Pretty much my same thoughts
I guess if he never gets the defensive rebounding up to par, if he is a good enough mid range shooter that might be okay (different type of player but still maybe okay)
Because talent? You want to add a guy like boozer because hes talented? I’m sorry i just don’t see that as a valid reason. -- fffindeed
by wallywagon11 on Aug 17, 2010 12:47 PM PDT up reply actions
The one thing I like about the Udoh pick -
- is that it shows that Riley is thinking for himself, he isn’t just following the conventional NBA groupthink.
That’s great. And if Epke turns into a good pick, then Riley deserves lots and lots of praise for it.
But …
I have not been thrilled by anything I’ve seen or heard about Udoh since he was picked, nor by Riley’s justifications of the pick. Sowhile I like the fact that Riley was willing to use his own judgement, I’m not particularly impressed by that judgement.
not a fan of drafting Udoh
I would have preferred them to have kept Morrow. If the Pargo signing goes through not a huge fan of it. Mikki Moore has lobter claws for hands. Who signed Maggette, was it Mullin or Riley? Wasn’t a fan of the Jackson signing.
I know most of these aren’t big ticket items but technically just trying to answer the question.
Because talent? You want to add a guy like boozer because hes talented? I’m sorry i just don’t see that as a valid reason. -- fffindeed
by wallywagon11 on Aug 17, 2010 10:58 AM PDT up reply actions
Who signed Maggette, was it Mullin or Riley?
Neither, it was Robert Rowell. Mullin wanted Baron back, Rowell didn’t. I imagine besides other reasons, RR didn’t want Baron back because of his demeanor. Baron strikes me as the kind of guy who keeps it real no matter what. I’m sure this brash confidence rubbed little Bobby the wrong way. Just speculating, but I think Rowell didn’t care for Baron that much on a personal level.
Riley didn’t have any say at all during that time.
okay, thanks.
Because talent? You want to add a guy like boozer because hes talented? I’m sorry i just don’t see that as a valid reason. -- fffindeed
by wallywagon11 on Aug 17, 2010 11:15 AM PDT up reply actions
The Jackson
signing also had nothing to do with Riley at all. This was all Robert Rowell. The whole captain Jack thing, the baptism of his character and the praying tattoo’s – These were all things everybody was talking about and paying attention to. I suspect along with Jackson’s rep as a talented player, the dollar he’d be able to turn with his image, probably enticed Rowell enough to push his pea brain to make that ugly call. I would have liked to keep Morrow as well, but I don’t think we really need him. To be brutally honest, I don’t think Anthony is really that good of a basketball player. Legendary shooter, but not very good ball player. He’s a strong enough worker, that you’d like to believe he’ll improve. I just don’t know how great or marginal that improvement will be.
I think between Ellis and Williams, Morrow wouldn’t get the PT he’d deserve, and we’d end up having to trade him anyway, or else we’d just be burning money. I think Wright is a better player than Morrow, and Anthony would be out of position playing the 3, anyway. I do think we should have gotten at least a 2nd round draft choice for him, but maybe it wasn’t an option.
I agree with you about Pargo. I’m not that big of a fan. But he hasn’t been signed yet, and if he is, at least it will provide some motivation for Lin to become better.
The Jackson signing also had nothing to do with Riley at all. This was all Robert Rowell.
Thanks for giving me the heads up. Should probably be clear by now that I am a little fuzzy with who was in charge and when in regards to the Warriors. I appreciate the correction.
I would have liked to keep Morrow as well, but I don’t think we really need him. To be brutally honest, I don’t think Anthony is really that good of a basketball player. Legendary shooter, but not very good ball player. He’s a strong enough worker, that you’d like to believe he’ll improve. I just don’t know how great or marginal that improvement will be.
Yes I would agree with you, I just thought the years and money in the deal the Warriors declined wasn’t all that bad and worth taking on. Not the biggest deal in the world and to be honest we don’t even know if he was told to cut costs if he wanted to pursue a big contract guy like Lee and then sign Wright as a free agent. Not saying Riley failed here I just would have liked to see him keep Morrow although (a) not the biggest deal in the world and (b) yes there might be more behind the scenes we don’t know about. In the end, I do understand that this stuff is fairly complicated with a lot of moving pieces and decisions having to be made with limited information.
Because talent? You want to add a guy like boozer because hes talented? I’m sorry i just don’t see that as a valid reason. -- fffindeed
by wallywagon11 on Aug 17, 2010 11:22 AM PDT up reply actions
You're right
Anthony could have been had for a good price. In this sense, I shared your feelings of surprise when we didn’t match. On the other hand, Morrow really deserves to show what he can do with the Nets, with what I’m positive was a grueling off-season for him in terms of improving his game and body. He would not have got a chance to showcase that improvement with us. I’m just glad we let him go to a team like the Nets, somebody we are not competing with, and will likely not beat us, both times we meet next season.
If we would’ve allowed him to go to the Lakers, Blazers, or Kings, I would’ve been deeply vexed. It really pisses me off that we couldn’t have gotten a draft choice for him. A couple of 2nd rounders can really give you a nice edge when you’re closing a deal. We as fans, should expect such a deal to present itself in the near future. I don’t expect Monta to stay a Warrior very long. All signs are pointing to it.
Thanks for giving me the heads up. Should probably be clear by now that I am a little fuzzy with who was in charge and when in regards to the Warriors.
Haha, don’t worry it was a little fuzzy for them too. In fact most of the “who was in charge” talk between Mullin/Nelson/Rowell/Riley at any given moment is still highly speculative. I think most of us have pieced together a pretty good roadmap of how we think it went down, but I certainly wouldn’t expect a fan of another team to be able to keep track of our front office drama.
Golden State Warriors '10-'11 Season: The Return of ^^^^
Stooge Riley
Traded Jamal Crawford for Acie Law and Speedy Claxton.
Traded guard Marco Belinelli to the Toronto Raptors for forward Devean George and cash.
Didn’t trade CJ Watson to Orlando Magic for first round pick, young player and cash when the Warriors had an abundance of point guards. Then he trades CJ Watson when Warriors have a shortage of point guards for a second round pick.
Signed Mikki Moore.
Traded the 34th overall pick in the 2010 draft to the Portland Trail Blazers for the 44th overall pick in the 2010 draft and cash.
"Go ahead. Make my day."
Who are you upset the Warriors missed out on with the 34th pick?
Because talent? You want to add a guy like boozer because hes talented? I’m sorry i just don’t see that as a valid reason. -- fffindeed
by wallywagon11 on Aug 17, 2010 3:16 PM PDT up reply actions
First name I thought of Hassan Whiteside, but he went #33.
How about (based on VSL):
Armon Johnson PG/SG
Devin Ebans SF
Luke Harangody SF/PF
Derick Caracter PF
"Go ahead. Make my day."
fair enough
Considering I only know two of those names I can’t really comment much about their game.
Because talent? You want to add a guy like boozer because hes talented? I’m sorry i just don’t see that as a valid reason. -- fffindeed
by wallywagon11 on Aug 17, 2010 3:35 PM PDT up reply actions
Didn’t trade CJ Watson to Orlando Magic for first round pick, young player and cash
That always struck me as a whole lot of rumor and very little substance….
Traded Jamal Crawford for Acie Law and Speedy Claxton.
That’s a positive on Riley’s resume…
by Missing Barry on Aug 17, 2010 3:17 PM PDT up reply actions
I'm surprised that people don't put that trade in context.
Because talent? You want to add a guy like boozer because hes talented? I’m sorry i just don’t see that as a valid reason. -- fffindeed
by wallywagon11 on Aug 17, 2010 3:20 PM PDT up reply actions
The fact is that Crawford did not have a ton of value in the league at the time. He just didn't
Only other way you could complain is to say that keeping Crawford would been useful last year and I doubt he would have put anywhere near the same numbers up with the Warriors and if he did it would be to the detriment of the rookie guard Curry.
Because talent? You want to add a guy like boozer because hes talented? I’m sorry i just don’t see that as a valid reason. -- fffindeed
by wallywagon11 on Aug 17, 2010 3:22 PM PDT up reply actions
That
but also that he wasn’t that good and was really expensive
Sick of fighting with my computer
by Reverend_Randy on Aug 17, 2010 3:43 PM PDT up reply actions
Without the public Nelson feud, we could have gotten a better deal for Crawford.
That was dumb on the fat dumb bastard’s part.
"Go ahead. Make my day."
One of the problems we've had under Nelson is that, when Nelson's relationship with a player sours, everybody knows about it.
He has consistently reduced the value of his players before we were able to trade them.
Crawford, Jackson, and Harrington are probably the three biggest examples.
They were all traded for less than their value because of conflicts with Nelson.
by Ronaldinho on Aug 17, 2010 3:58 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I will say though
with Jackson and Crawford I don’t think the Warriors made out to shabby when they had to do the trade. Harringon is the one I think they screwed up on in my opinion.
Because talent? You want to add a guy like boozer because hes talented? I’m sorry i just don’t see that as a valid reason. -- fffindeed
by wallywagon11 on Aug 17, 2010 4:00 PM PDT up reply actions
and, it turned out that Harrington had been quietly asking for a trade for at least 6 months before it broke in the media – in all cases we were at a disadvantage because the whole league knew we had to unload the player
"It’s frickin’ Sisyphean to be a Warriors Fan."
True...
The way it was explained to me was that it was because of a “misunderstanding” between Al’s agent and a local writer about whether or not a certain conversation was on or off the record that the trade request finally became public. Whoops…
As far as I know this wasn’t news to many of the writers closely covering the Warriors. It was something that had been asked respectfully to be kept quiet and it was. The same source had informed me of the trade request months before it surfaced in the media, so it would appear that he was familiar with and close to the situation.
That of course is just one account of how it all went down.
Golden State Warriors '10-'11 Season: The Return of ^^^^
Probably because he doesn’t play defense, doesn’t rebound, shoots a lot (without making many of those shots), and isn’t very good at setting up his teammates….
by Missing Barry on Aug 18, 2010 7:23 AM PDT up reply actions
Didn’t trade CJ Watson to Orlando Magic for first round pick, young player and cash
Atma Brother One:
http://www.goldenstateofmind.com/2009/7/23/959847/rumor-magic-and-warriors-talking
"Go ahead. Make my day."
Maybe it wasn't a first round pick, but a second rounder, a Turkoglu TE, Milovan Rakovic and cash.
Riley was holding out for a first rounder and cash.
"Go ahead. Make my day."
a tea leaf? astrology? what signs?
What exactly are these “all signs” ? Just because the Monta bashers want him gone? I don’t see it.
We are not going to get value for value for Monta, why make a trade for less value or is that what we have been accustomed too? I mean, Harrington > crawford
crawford> law, claxton jackson > radman, 1 game of bell
Ellis just came out last week saying how he was happy as a Warrior and that he had just spoken with Curry recently.
All signs point to Kobe being traded too, mostly cause i can’t stand him.
BAsh Bash Bash
I look forward to watching an exciting back court of Ellis – Curry. with Curry’s growing experience and what seems like a new positive attitude from Ellis.
I would say currently if anyone seems primed to be out the door in a trade and most likely once again not getting value for value, it would be Beidrins. And i would hate to see that happen as well.
I want to see what this group can do without the influence of Nelson. I want a coach in here that holds players accountable on both ends of the floor and with that i think you will see the Ellis of 08. I don’t want further depletion of talent just to get rid of a player. I agreed with moving Mags, that was clear addition by subtraction moving that contract. Ellis, on the other hand, has a very attractive contract that is on the cheap side for his production and does not escalate.
by legionurmaster on Aug 17, 2010 12:04 PM PDT reply actions
BAsh Bash Bash
Pretty sure lilboots wasn’t trying to “bash bash bash.”
Because talent? You want to add a guy like boozer because hes talented? I’m sorry i just don’t see that as a valid reason. -- fffindeed
by wallywagon11 on Aug 17, 2010 3:17 PM PDT up reply actions
Hey
I’m not trying to bash Monta at all. I actually think he’s a character guy with a hell of a lot of game. But I happen to be in the minority within the fanbase who believes that he shouldn’t be a priority on our team, and that we could be spending that money elsewhere. With that said, I’ll point out a few reasons why I think the supernatural “signs” are pointing to Ellis’ departure.
1) The rise to prominence of a guard named Reggie Williams. When he and Curry played together, the team played notably better than they did when Ellis started next to Curry. This is a fact. This upcoming season, when Williams comes into the game and all of the sudden we start playing a whole lot better, then it’s inevitable that Ellis’ value as a member of this team will drop considerably.
This is not a personal bash on Monta, and I’m also not saying that he can’t play. He does things on the court that 97% of the players in the league simply can not do. He’s just not good for us. I suspect we will not agree on this. Trust me, in due time, you’ll learn that it’s okay to move on to something else if it works out better for you. Reggie Williams is a better teammate in the backcourt. We all know this, and therefore Lacob assuredly knows this. For this reason alone, I think a trade would be inevitable, but there’s more.
2) The drafting of Udoh – Defense. The acquisition of David Lee – Rebounding/Defense(def. rebounding) The signing of Dorell Wright – Defense. Stephen Curry/Monta Ellis – Defensive liability.
You see it? Did you notice the gap? While our team has been consistently making moves to improve the team’s defense and rebounding, the starting tandem of Ellis and Curry negates some of these changes if not broken up. You may think that the organization has made these moves for the sake of allowing Curry/Ellis more slack, but I don’t think that’s true. Besides, we are not nearly a good enough defensive team, even now, to even think about that. Our best shot blocker won’t be playing until next season, and he’ll be a rookie.
I do not believe that Ellis is necessarily a bad defender, but people forget that these are human beings. These are not entities likened to chess pieces, these are people with bones, and muscles, and ligaments. Ellis goes against guys night in and night out that out weight him by a good 40 lbs.
To put that in perspective, it’s like the average Joe, weighing in at 165 lbs. going up against guys who weigh 200 lbs. on a nightly basis, for 82 games, in a contact sport. You begin to have it in mind, that this is a tough task in which to excel. Tough ain’t enough, when it’s the second game off a back-to-back and Monta sees a guy 6-7, 230 in front of him put his head down and drive to the rack. The release of pained air when that kind of force smashes into his sore ribs behind a protecting forearm, should not be taken so lightly. Monta does not have the shield or the strength to withstand this consistently enough to be competitive.
But some times, when he knows the lights are on, and Cheryl’s on the sideline with the microphone, and he’s looking into the eyes of somebody who has taken a roster spot from him on the western all-star team, this may not matter. In these cases we all go “Ooooo, he CAN play defense! This COULD work”. Do you get what I’m saying here? I’m not trying to bash him, it’s just a bit unrealistic to support all this.
3) In the few interviews Lacob has given, he’s shown some vested interest in a lot of the players on the team, and has voiced this interest accordingly. Find me an interview where he discusses Ellis. I’ve really been wanting him to talk about Monta, but he won’t. I don’t really know how to take that, but I would imagine that if he was a Monta guy, he would’ve mentioned at least something. Sort of leaves me to conclude that he’s not a Monta guy, I guess.
4) Unless Monta Ellis thinks that he’s suddenly NOT better than everyone else besides LeBron and Kobe, coming into this year, I find it hard to believe that there will be a radical change within his game. If this is the case, I suspect you will slap yourself. I know I will. Again, if this is the case, and Reggie Williams keeps doing what he’s been doing, or even improves, then it is a clear sign that an Ellis trade is inevitably just round the corner.
I’ll slam my brain against the wall for you and try to think of some more signs, but that’s all I got now.
lilboots
thanks for the response
the bash bash bash statement really wasnt directed at you but at the many who bash monta at every opportunity…. that said let me reply here
1. Williams – hey i like him to, but the guy has been at the NBa level for about 2 months..i think you are really exaggerating statements such as rise to prominence and i dont see williams as anything more than an average player where Monta is borderline all star.
Further on that point, i agree Monta had a confusing season. Nelson told him to learn to play point in the off season, then they draft curry, then they play monta at the one quite a bit for the first 4 months. I think Monta will play much better knowing his role, having a coach who holds him accountable when he goes Kobe jacking up volume shots, who doesn t burn him out playing him 48 minutes a game.
I think Williams is a great back up for Ellis and Curry and they make a nice trio.
2. Defense – Defense is a team concept, It is up to the head coach to hold a player accountable for a defensive effort. Magic Johnson wasnt a great defender, but he became a solid player within Riley’s defensive concept. Ellis ahs shown ability to play D…and has had some stellar shut down nights like when he did just that to Roy.
You mention how the team is being built now and it makes me think of Detroit and the thomas/dumars tandem – very similar in size to ellis/curry… they can be succesfful together.
First and foremost it comes with a head coach that holds players accountable for a defensive effort and actually comes with a defensive concept.
3. be happy too show you lacob gushing over Ellis today in fact.
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/kawakami/2010/08/17/lacob-interview-part-2-on-biedrins-ellis-and-the-sunk-cost-in-don-nelson/
-LACOB: Actually, I think we have three really great players. I think Monta Ellis is a great, great talent. He is actually one of my favorite players to watch in the NBA.
And by the way, I think Andris Biedrins, to me, makes the core four, because Biedrins is at least in the top half of centers, when he’s healthy. And he’s young. So I’d call him in the top half.
He needs to work hard, obviously, to get better, and we have to make a decision as to whether he’s going to be healthy, whether he’s going to work hard and whether his heart’s in it. Whether he wants to be a Warrior, OK?
All those things. But he has the potential to be a very good player.
Monta Ellis is a tremendous player. He’s a unique talent. Unique talent. So I would say we have three great players.
There ya go – i would say he very much is an Ellis guy.
I think we need a head coach and to continue to build up our front court. I think ellis going to surprise you with his maturity and team play this season.
Thanks for the interview
That was a great read, one I obviously missed. I don’t pride myself in giving misinformation. I’m actually glad Lacob value’s Monta’s game, as do I. In all fairness, I don’t think Lacob is stupid enough to say, “Well, Ellis is a bit of a hazy subject for me, next question.” I’m not saying that I think Lacob is lying when he says he likes Ellis, but it would be very foolish for him to maintain a negative stance coming into a new season. Do you see what I mean?
If I’m the proprietor of a product, I want you to believe that I want this product as much as everybody else, so that you now want to take it from me. I’m not saying Lacob is using his words as a marketing ploy, but you have to keep in mind the guy’s position and where he’s coming from. I’m sure the Celtics schooled him on couple of unmistakable does and don’ts within the business, that we should not expect him to breech any time soon.
I wrote a very lengthy fanpost about why Ellis played the way he did last season. I defended him. While I agree that last season was a bit flukey and open for various thoughts of criticism, I tend to believe that he will come into this season a significantly changed player. However, we’re still riding on a strange wave banking on the possibility of him allowing the offense to completely run through Curry and play off the ball more efficiently, and decisively. Some of the egotistical comments he made last year, disturbed me. While Monta, very much like Lacob, could very well be trying to sell himself high like a lot of “elite” competitors do, the disturbing fact remains, that he really WAS playing like he thought he was LeBron or Kobe, every game.
I would’ve taken that with a grain of salt if he wasn’t putting up 30 shots. While I believe he will come into this season with a different attitude, I’m not sure enough to the point where I’m comfortable with saying he definitely won’t be a detriment to the team, and he’ll help us win games.
Williams – I was very skeptical when Williams first came to the team. I did not like him. The reason why I didn’t, was because my dad called me one day and said, “Have you seen this Williams guy? I think he’s better than Azubuike!” This pissed me off, and the conversation was over. Azubuike was my favorite player on the team. However, the more I watched Williams, the more I surveyed and thought about some of the decisions he made on the court long after he made them, I began to change my tone. He is an NBA player, and a very good one. He has a rare combination of instincts and maturity, his balance between being a killer on offense, while being unselfish, is a tough thing to find in young guards.
While we rely only on probability that Monta will improve, it’s only fair that we rely on this same probability in William’s case. Williams made such an impression in such a short amount of time, that he earned a guaranteed contract for next season. I hate repeating this, but Curry and Williams play very well together in a positional tandem where you only need one star. Look at all the teams who have won in the past who have either a great point guard or a great shooting guard, but never both. There are many of them. There are reasons for this.
Take a circle with a fixed volume. If you fill that circle with 70% of water(Curry), then you can’t put in another 70%(Ellis). It overflows and causes leaks. While I have a hard time imagining Monta reducing to 30% or 35%(I can live with some leaks), I equally dimiss the notion, of the circle being 50 – 50, or even 60 – 40. Curry just makes decisions vastly better than Monta. I want Curry handling the ball 70% of the time, and Williams playing off the ball. With his range, his consistency, his knack for shooting off the dribble, his passing, his size on defense, his lack of ego as a player, his insistence on becoming better, and his age as a player to grow alongside Curry – all these things make him a better candidate for the job in my eyes.
If Ellis can reduce his mistakes and his style of play, than I agree with you completely, it can work! I just don’t believe this can happen, but like you said, maybe I’ll be surprised!
Defense is a team concept, but it’s equally an individual ability. For example, if you and me are playing in a pick up game with a guy on our team who has no arms, respectfully, chances are, that no matter how well he grasps the concept of team defense, he’s going to consistently fall victim to his opponents. In turn, you and I are now fighting an uphill battle together trying to neutralize what he’s lost. While this may seem like an extreme analogy, it’s an accurate one. Monta is simply physically impaired at that position with his weight and strength, more so than his height.
Joe Dumars should never be compared to Ellis defensively, just because they’re the same height. Dumars was a tough, tough, defender who would own even Jordan through the years. Dumars was also about 20lbs. heavier. It matters. While I also appreciate your comparison of Magic in regards to team defense, Magic was a player who went above and beyond the pale of any conceivable talent during that era. The match up problems, the scoring he was responsible for, the pace, everything. I almost wouldn’t care if Magic turned his back to his defender and let him score every other play. He was that good. Monta doesn’t come close to that.
The only way you can hold a player accountable on defense is if you bench him or yell at him, or both. It’s hard to do that today with NBA players who are in the upper echelon, particularly scorers(earns more fans/status, boosts ego). The NBA is business, and there’s a whole another element to it that has nothing to do with basketball. There’s guys earning over 10 mil in the league who would never be worthy of that kind of dough if it wasn’t for fans and they were playing just for the basketball gods, mortals excluded.
I’m not saying benching Monta for missing assignments is a bad thing, but I think sitting him when you’re demanding something he physically can’t deliver on a consistent basis, will put a very sour taste in his mouth eventually. Monta gets beat up. While he can put on a performance and really lock a guy down, you have to understand that this is from him being extremely competitive and digging deep. I mentioned this above already, you can’t count on him to do that for you 75+ games. It’s not possible.
Again, thanks for the amazing interview, I ate some good food as I read, and I’ll never leave you hanging in the wind without a response. I’ll always try to answer the best I can and with respect.
Joe Dumars should never be compared to Ellis defensively, just because they’re the same height. Dumars was a tough, tough, defender who would own even Jordan through the years. Dumars was also about 20lbs. heavier. It matters.
I doubt there are any measurements available for Dumars, but I’m going to guess he was long, too. Length goes a long way in defense, and really, is more important than height. Ellis is not only short, but he has T-Rex arms. And on the days when you do see him play “shut down” defense, it generally involves forcing a lot of turnovers (which he did to Roy). It’s based on a bunch of gambles, and every once in a while, most of the breaks go his way. That’s not good defense. That’s getting lucky. He often loses on those gambles and the other team gets a great shot out of it. Ellis is most effective when he’s forcing turnovers, and he IS good at doing that, but it just can’t replace consistently being in good position and having the size, strength and length to contest shots, keep your man away from the hoop and cut down passing lanes once you establish that position.
by Missing Barry on Aug 18, 2010 7:32 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Got ya
Another great read for ya in response to that interview
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/warriors/2010/08/18/lacob-talks-fans-wait/
I completely get that Lacob saw the his error when he said we have two great players on the KNBR interview and people have been running with that ever since. I get that Ellis may have felt slighted by that statement and that in a small way Lacob was trying to repair any damage made by that statement.
But i believe he has been a fan of Ellis and that he watched him from day one and not just last season and knows the growth and what he is capable of.
I agree on some points with Williams, and i still believe he is a nice compliment adding to the trio and it doesnt have to be either or with Williams and Ellis. But i also, like i said earlier, believe that Ellis is a special talent with abilities attacking and finishing at the rim that Williams simply does not possess. Williams does not have the foot speed of Ellis and he does not attack the rim at all that i remember in his two months and summer league.
Yes he has a nice perimeter game and possesses good instincts and court vision, but i would rather have my two guard in attack mode like Ellis is. Although i am glad he has improved his 3 point shooting, the last thing i want is for him to be concerned about his range.
You talk about decision making and Ellis was learning on the fly the point guard job. I think Curry taking the distribution worries off of Ellis where he can go back to being the primary scorer playing more off the ball than with it in his hands will benefit all, ellis and the team.
I think Ellis prior to Nelson getting his lazy ways, having his pet players going unaccountable for what they do on the court etc has really changed Ellis. I think had he never been exposed to Nelson he would have been more “coachable” and future coaches would be able to bench or yell or whatever at him. But he has witnessed the likes of Jackson, davis, watson etc the Nelson Pets that make countless errors, poor shot selection, and bad decisions on the court without reprimand.
I think the volume shot monster that Ellis became is mostly a result of bad coaching on Nelson’s part and the same holds true with his defensive effort. Again, MB, mentionsthe defense on Roy and i disagree. Nelson teaches the gambling style of defense. In that circumstance it WAS Ellis holding his own, denying denying and positioning, not gambling and he has done it other times. Consistency? Get him a real coach that actually pushes defense and then we will see.
As for Ellis and durability. Sure if a caoch is demanding 48 minutes a night from him he wont hold up. But i think 36 is reasonable. they said the same thing about Iverson and durablity.
Bottom line for me is Ellis is or i should say can be solid and williams is a perfect compliment to both curry and ellis and it isnt a situation where one should go. IF Ellis had a different contract other than 11 mil non escalating then perhaps but the guy is pretty much a steal at that price and i hope williams becomes a steal as well. One thing about Buike by the way, loved the guy as well… buike was developing a post up game, played above the rim and hit the boards strong… 3 things i dont see in williams game. I just think Williams consistent perimeter game and his ability to distribute sets him apart as a team player as we all were sick of the isos and black hole approach that started last season with jackson and maggette.
Sorry for the jumbled reply trying to get my thoughts out before i run out of the office.
by legionurmaster on Aug 18, 2010 10:44 AM PDT reply actions

by 
























