SB Nation Bay Area Editor's Pick

All-Star Break Overview

by onlxn on Feb 18, 2011 6:41 PM PST

A condensed version of some ramblings from elsewhere... here are some general thoughts on the team's performance, without wading into player-specific details.

1) The Team Has Been Bad So Far

Not horrible, but bad... there's really no way to spin it. Most adjusted rankings peg the Warriors as the 21st-best team in the league and the 12th-best team in the West. Yes, the Warriors have played much better of late, but then it's a stretch in the schedule where they should be playing well: plenty of home games (the Dubs have now played as many home games as any team in the league), and just as important, very few back-to-backs. It's also worth noting that the Warriors have actually been healthier than the average NBA team. The Curry-Monta-Wright-Lee-Biedrins lineup has started more games than all but four NBA quintets; the top six guys on the depth chart have missed nine, nine, eight, one, zero and zero games respectively. The usual excuses simply don't apply: the Warriors have been in good position to succeed. They haven't succeeded. They've played solidly below-average basketball to date.

2) The Team Has Been Bad For The Usual Pair Of Reasons

The first is road ineptitude: the Dubs have stunk on the road this season, as they usually do. The second reason is defense. For all of the hand-wringing about Monta's tunnel vision and Curry's turnovers and Biedrin's timidity, the Warriors have the 11th-most-efficient offense in the league... they're playing effective, playoff-level NBA offense. Their defense is 28th in the league, and is just about as bad as it was last year. The offensive issues are really beside the point. The four main problems with this team's play have been defense, defense, defense and defense.

3) The Defense Has Been Better Of Late...

A shorthand way to gauge how well a team plays defense on a given night is to compare its opponent's offensive efficiency in the game to their season-long mark. As an example, the Jazz have an offensive efficiency of 108.5 to date this season... the Warriors held them to an OE of 107.2 Wednesday night, a bit below their overall mark. There's a ton of noise in this method, but it serves as a quick-and-dirty way to tell if your team is rising to the defensive occasion or not.

Using that method, I split the Warriors' season to date into five eleven game segments. Here are the results. (Negative numbers are good here... a -1.0 would suggest that the Dubs' opponents scored one point less per 100 possessions than they'd normally be expected to.)

Games 1-11: -0.05 differential

Games 12-22: +7.96 differential

Games 23-33: +3.66 differential

Games 34-44: +6.74 differential

Games 45-55: +2.15 differential

After a brutal couple of months, the Dubs have slowed the bleeding some of late. The trend is even more pronounced if you just look at the last nine games, where the Warriors' differential is -0.62. The last couple weeks have seen some downright credible D from dem Dubs.

4) ...But It May Not Be Sustainable

It's not like a good defensive stretch like this is unprecedented: the Warriors played solid D in the first couple weeks of the season as well, and that sure didn't last. And in these past nine games, the Dubs still put up some stinkers: the Suns and Nuggets games are obvious, but the Dubs also allowed Milwaukee to score a good bit more effectively than usual (+5.2, despite the Bucks shooting just 6-for-23 from three), and didn't actually put up a great effort against the Hornets (+0.2 in a game that saw just three Hornets treys and zero Emeka Okafors). The Warriors' good overall showing is thanks in large part to the complete shutdown of a Deron-less Jazz team a couple weeks ago (-18.0). Make no mistake -- the defensive efforts against the Bulls (-6.6) and Thunder (-3.3) were also excellent. But even in this, the hottest stretch the Warriors have had in several years, their D could best be described as "hit-or-miss". And in the four games before this stretch -- Clippers (+15.7), Spurs (+7.2), Hornets (+10.2), Bobcats (+17.8) -- the Warriors played defense about as bad as you can play it.

Maybe the Warriors' defense has turned a corner, or maybe they just had a peppy couple performances in front of the Oracle faithful. I'd tend to believe the latter. And given the road-heaviness of the remaining schedule, and the likelihood that their opponents aren't likely to miss as many threes as a bunch of recent opponents have, I have trouble seeing the Dubs closing the season strong. I'm guessing they go something like 11-16 after the break, ending with 37 wins and a middlin' draft pick FTW.

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!

Tweet Comment 24 comments | 7 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

onlxn. i know always have good perspectives. but...

but this is all star weekend. all i concentrated on was:

1) The Defense Has Been Better Of Late…

2) 37 wins.

ALL TRUE. thumbs up

For me. I’ll be rooting for Steph Curry in that competition thing he is doing. if he wins or loses. cool. im just glad there is a Warrior there.

I really want Dorell Wright to kick Paul Punnk Arse Pierce in the 3pt contest finals.

I like ray allen. but i want this to be the finals.

Battle of OG So Cals. I want Pierce to be moded just as much as Marc J. Spears wants him moded.

I love how Marc was rooting for our Warrior representative to kick arse and claim king of threes for 2011.

Yo D Wright. i claim you are gonna win this. Break that stupid 3pt champion curse that colin the Herd ESPN east coast biased mentioned this week.

LETS GO WRIGHT! LETS GO WRIGHT!

YOU GOT THIS WIN!!!

GOOOO WARRRIORRSSS! BAYYY AREEEAAA!

ROMESdavidWOOD37 has taken over the Ongline. He's cool.

by ROMESdavidWOOD37 on Feb 18, 2011 9:55 PM PST reply actions

They have been a pleasent suprise this year and right along where they should be. They are good with health.

It’s amazing how much people complain about this team who at the moment is just as good as last years team in a full year.

by BIGBIERINS on Feb 19, 2011 8:04 AM PST reply actions

Major difference is health compared to the last 2 years.

And yes this is a better group of players as well.

by Only In Fairfax on Feb 21, 2011 1:01 PM PST up reply actions

I'd also like to point out that our rebounding is still relatively bad

We’re 3rd worst in total rebounds given to opposing teams (2437, league average is 2308). And we’re dead last in defensive rebounding percentage at .690 (League average is .737).

Lee was supposed to help with our rebounding, sadly he hasn’t.

"I tell him straight, 'If you're going to lead, you have to be the first to practice. You have to come in, get your work down and be prepared for practice,' " assistant coach Keith Smart said. "He needs to figure out why he is having stomach problems and he's got to watch how LeBron (James), Kobe (Bryant) and D-Wade (Dwyane Wade) work. He needs to mimic that if he wants his teammates to speak volumes about him." -Keith Smart on Monta Ellis

by ejdacanay on Feb 19, 2011 12:19 PM PST reply actions

The rebounding results are frankly bizarre, in that the Dubs have been downright good (9th in the league) on the offensive glass, and yet have continued their historically poor defensive rebounding from last season. You’ll sometimes see teams — the Celtics being a prime example — that have a huge disparity the other way, in that they seal off the defensive glass but don’t go for offensive boards for fear that they’ll give up transition points. It’s rare to see a team that’s so extreme in this direction.

While blame can be laid at the feet of a number of people, it’s worth noting: the Dubs’ defensive rebounding rate was been significantly higher with Andris than without him, but their defensive rebounding has not significantly improved with David Lee on the floor as opposed to off (per Basketball Value). This was also true of Lee’s Knicks tenure… they tended to grab defensive rebounds only very slightly better when he was on the floor, if better.

A recent conversation at the APBRmetrics board is salient here… it’s long and very technical, but interesting (and features our own EvanZ!). While it’s of course generally true that good rebounders help your rebounding, there are significant diminishing returns with some players on the defensive end, who really do just tend to grab a big number of the “free” balls (missed free throws, missed jumpers in transition) instead of grabbing boards that other guys couldn’t have. David Lee is a guy in that vein… he’s not at the greediness level of a Troy Murphy, but he is a guy whose defensive rebounds tend to be balls that teammates of his also could’ve gotten. Andris, for one, grabs more really tough defensive rebounds, and boosts his team’s rate more.

None of this is to say that David Lee doesn’t help on the defensive glass. It’s just that he doesn’t help nearly as much as his raw numbers would make you think he does. It’s part of the reason the Dubs’ D has been so bad, and it’s part of the reason that the decision to give the guy $80 million was questionable at best.

Golden State Worriers: Angst & Analysis

by onlxn on Feb 19, 2011 1:20 PM PST up reply actions

Glad to see you back in the saddle onixn...

Wasnt it in Dec when you proclaimed that you had 100% given up on the team? ;-) ,just breakin balls.

by Only In Fairfax on Feb 21, 2011 1:04 PM PST up reply actions

Interesting to note: we are 4-13 when Curry/Lee have been out

Speaks to total lack of depth, we can’t make up for anyone missing.

With our main 4 playing:
22-16. Not bad at all.

by tafkasam on Feb 19, 2011 1:31 PM PST reply actions 2 recs

Not bad, but when you look closer, really not all that great, either. Curry and Lee happened to miss some tough parts of the schedule, including big chunks of the brutal road trips that opened the year. The result is that the Warriors’ core four has played 38 times in very favorable circumstances. They’ve played in 23 home games and 15 road games, and their 38 games have included only four back-to-backs, an absurdly low figure. They haven’t faced all patsies, by any means… the quartets’ opponents have an aggregate winning percentage of .511. But even given that, between the home-heaviness and the rest, you’d expect an average team to go at least 22-16 here. And frankly, the quartetted Warriors were lucky to even do that well. They outscored their opponents by just 0.4 a game, from which you’d expect a team to go 20-18, instead.

A healthy Warriors team isn’t destined to suck or anything… there’s just not much evidence thus far that a healthy Warriors team can be any better than average. Wednesday’s win, a back-to-back road victory over an (admittedly turmoil-ridden) above-.500 team, was a positive data point. If the Warriors are going to finish strong, they’re going to need to learn how to win a lot of games like that.

Golden State Worriers: Angst & Analysis

by onlxn on Feb 19, 2011 3:30 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs

there’s just not much evidence thus far that a healthy Warriors team can be any better than average

this is what worries me…that we’re about to enter a five- or ten-year cycle of vicious mediocrity. Not bad enough for ownership to “blow it up” or get a high lottery pick, but not good enough to attract elite free agents or be real contenders. Sigh. What’s a hardcore analytic fan to do?

_______________________________________________________________
The City: A Golden State Warriors-Centric NBA Blog

by Evanz on Feb 19, 2011 3:41 PM PST up reply actions

this is what worries me…that we’re about to enter a five- or ten-year cycle of vicious mediocrity.

The odds of this seem especially high given the impending compression of the salary cap. Paying $30 million a season to Monta, Lee and Biedrins isn’t necessarily the end of the world with a soft $56 million cap… with a hard $46 million cap, it could be more or less crippling, as you won’t have much leeway to grab anyone else, and nobody else’ll be in the mood to absorb contracts that big for non-difference-makers.

I share your gloom, dog. The decision to spend so much on David Lee, on the eve of this labor dispute, was really short-sighted, and I worry that the team will suffer from that mistake for years to come.

Golden State Worriers: Angst & Analysis

by onlxn on Feb 19, 2011 3:53 PM PST up reply actions

You're entitled to have whatever expectations on the next 5-10 years you want, but...

If you think a hard $46M cap is going to be a problem for the Warriors, go check out the Heat, Lakers, and Mavericks rosters… and that’s just off the top of my head. Boston, Atlanta, San Antonio, and basically every single NBA team would have massive trouble fitting their rosters into a $46M cap… unless the NBA switches to an NFL style contract structure without guarantees. Suffice to say, a hard $46M cap is not happening without a ton of extended grandfather clauses and/or mandated contract restructuring.

At this point, it is stupid to attempt to try to predict what’ll happen with the new CBA other than “the salary cap will be lower.” Your suggesting that a hard $46M cap is a real possibility AND that it’s a huge problem for the Warriors in particular is extremely narrow sighted. It’s like you’re taking two completely separate rumors (i.e. hard cap & 46M cap) and combining their most extreme aspects while only considering how screwed the Warriors would be (forget that Miami (and a few others I’m sure) would be over the cap with only 3 players on their roster).

The Warriors have sucked, and they will likely continue to suck, but the impending changes to the salary cap are not going to change it one iota. For one, we don’t know what they are, and for two, any salary cap changes will be just as bad for the Warriors as for the rest of the league.

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

-randolphforpresident

by Dubs fan in Boston on Feb 21, 2011 12:04 PM PST up reply actions

OK I feel much better now...I think?

by Only In Fairfax on Feb 21, 2011 1:08 PM PST up reply actions

Things will be grandfathered in

Gilbert Arenas will be paid his $120m. They will not force teams to buy out players wholesale to get under a new hard cap. The Warriors will not be hampered any more than any other team by any new rules… except that the Warriors’ owners probably have about zero sway, whereas Mr. Buss has a much bigger say in what rules to push for and how things are grandfathered in. The more powerful teams will get what they want, everybody else will have to deal with what happens.

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

-randolphforpresident

by Dubs fan in Boston on Feb 21, 2011 5:51 PM PST up reply actions

You seem to be missing the extremely obvious point that those teams would be cash-strapped with good rosters, while the Warriors would be cash-strapped with a bad one. When the ceiling lowers, good teams will still be good, and low-money teams will still have flexibility. Teams with non-competitive and expensive rosters, like us, will be the hardest-hit.

Golden State Worriers: Angst & Analysis

by onlxn on Feb 21, 2011 1:56 PM PST up reply actions

You seem to be missing the extremely obvious point that the Lakers have 3 players that eat up a combined $56M (and another 12 that eat up ~$35M, but I digress) of cap space. Were the NBA to enact a draconian hard $46M salary cap, the Lakers would have to release 13 players from their roster to get under cap (under the current CBA, they’d have to buy out ~$150M of salary). They would then have Kobe and Gasol, and ~$3M to spend to field 3 starters and an entire bench… keeping in mind that the rookie minimum salary is $500k and the veteran minimum is over $1M. How, exactly, does this put them in a better situation than the Warriors with an entire starting rotation making $38M? Would you really rather have Kobe, Gasol, and 3 borderline NBA players (borderline NBA players mind you, not borderline starters) over Monta, Steph, Dorell, David, Andris, and 6 borderline NBA players? Miami, Boston, Atlanta, Orlando, and Dallas would all be relatively equally screwed.

Suffice to say, this scenario you proposed would devastate the Lakers and Celtics (i.e. the NBAs two biggest cash cows) far more than the Warriors. It would devastate the entire NBA as a product, destroy all that many teams have worked to build, and put numerous NBA players out on the street out of a job. It would require the buy ins from the owners of many teams who’d be devastated, as well as the players union which represents every single one of those veterans who’d be out of a job. Yeah… it’s not going to happen. At all. In any way shape or form.

Again, you can complain all you want about the players on the Warriors team, or how much they’re paid. But when you start conjuring up ridiculous scenarios and complaining about how the Warriors will be screwed while ignoring how those same ridiculous constraints will impact the rest of the league, you start to sound like a raving lunatic. You’re not wrong to say the outlook of the Warriors is decidedly unrosy, you’re just wrong that the salary cap changes will be remotely that drastic, and you’re wrong that it will impact the Warriors worse than the rest of the league. If there’s a hard cap, the teams who will be over the cap next year will be the ones who’re screwed (i.e. not the Warriors). If the cap is lowered, every team with overpriced talent will be screwed (hint: that’s a rather large portion of the league… Magic, Hawks, Suns, Mavericks, cough, cough)… unless there are grandfather clauses, which I guarantee you, there will be.

You can dislike the outlook as much as you want, but the impending changes to the CBA will not effect the prospects of the Warriors at all. The Warriors are screwed because they don’t have a star… let alone an all star. Don’t muddy the water by bringing in silly discussions of how the salary cap will impact things when there’s no consensus on the new CBA landscape. The players on the roster suck or they don’t. When the new CBA is finalized, the Warriors roster will remain the same, as will the free agent stock. The Warriors have ~15M coming off the books in the form of Vlad and Gadz. That’s not something every NBA team has. Will it be useful? Who knows, probably not. Your argument that the Warriors are bad is a perfectly valid argument supported by almost 20 years of ineptitude. You’ve got plenty of real evidence there. No need to gussy it up.

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

-randolphforpresident

by Dubs fan in Boston on Feb 21, 2011 4:13 PM PST up reply actions

Would you really rather have Kobe, Gasol, and 3 borderline NBA players (borderline NBA players mind you, not borderline starters) over Monta, Steph, Dorell, David, Andris, and 6 borderline NBA players?

Um, are you serious? Yes, I would rather have Kobe and Gasol. By a mile.

Elite talent is essentially all that matters in the NBA. The Heat are basically in the situation you’re describing… they’re paying three guys $43.5 million, the MLE to Mike Miller and the veteran minimum to ten different guys, and they’re near the top of the league. Now, obviously not everyone is blessed with that trio. But most of the good teams are top-heavy. If the Magic were forced to dump J-Rich and Turkoglu, or the Mavs were forced to dump Chandler and Shawn Marion, you think they’d stink all of a sudden?

(A note on depth: one NBA rule that isn’t gonna change, because players like it far more than owners hate it, is that you can always sign players for the veteran’s minimum, no matter how capped out you are. Even in the darkest cap scenarios, teams will still be able to fill out their rosters on the cheap. Given that, the key is to cram as much quality into your core as you possibly can.)

If the cap is lowered, every team with overpriced talent will be screwed (hint: that’s a rather large portion of the league… Magic, Hawks, Suns, Mavericks, cough, cough)

Absolutely… I’m not saying the Warriors will be uniquely screwed if the owners win a bloodbath. But they’ll still be screwed. We don’t have the highest level of salary commitments in the league or anything close to it, but we’re not swimming in space, either. Our salary commitment for next year is higher than Phoenix’s, and their ownership is the laughingstock of the league.

You can dislike the outlook as much as you want, but the impending changes to the CBA will not effect the prospects of the Warriors at all. The Warriors are screwed because they don’t have a star… let alone an all star.

That’s only half of why they’re screwed. The other half is that they now lack the flexibility to increase their chances of finding a star. If a harder cap sends a lot of useful players onto the market, the Pacers and Nets and Kings will be in a financial position to grab them. The Warriors won’t be, because they took that potential flexibility and (over)spent it on David Lee.

The Warriors have ~15M coming off the books in the form of Vlad and Gadz. That’s not something every NBA team has.

That matters for a total of 72 more hours, after which time the Warriors will be one of the many teams who figure to be at or even above whatever future cap is established. (And no, I obviously don’t know that it’ll be a hard $46 million cap. But it’ll be a far, far more draconian cap than any in recent memory. The upcoming labor ground won’t exactly be fought on even ground.) Being capped out is not necessarily a long-term problem; being bad isn’t necessarily a long-term problem, either. Being both? Yikes.

We have $30 million devoted to three players who can’t lead us anywhere. That’s a problem in any cap environment, but the lower the cap, the bigger of a problem it becomes. It’s really pretty straightforward.

Golden State Worriers: Angst & Analysis

by onlxn on Feb 21, 2011 4:44 PM PST up reply actions

What I think I hear you saying is that since we can’t sign Kobe, LeBron, DWade, KG, CP3, DWill, DRose, KD, Griffen, Howard, or any of the other superstars, we’re screwed.

Guess what? With or without a renegotiated cap structure, that wasn’t going to happen. Remeber how in your hypothetical scenario that the Magic are not too sad about dumping the likes of JRich & Turkoglu? Guess what? Neither of those players, nor the likes of Gilbert Arenas, Joe Johnson, Marvin Williams, Andrei Kirilenko, nor any of the other hordes of overpaid/undertalented “stars” are ever going to make the Kings, Nets, or Pacers any better than David Lee makes the Warriors.

We have ~~$30 million devoted to~~ three players who can’t lead us anywhere. That’s a problem ~~in any cap environment, but the lower the cap, the bigger of a problem it becomes~~. It’s really pretty straightforward.

Fixed it. And for the record, any major changes to the cap structure will be met with grandfather clauses. The owners are not just going to drop the salary cap by 20% without instating some pro-rating of past contracts or something.

If the Magic were forced to dump J-Rich and Turkoglu, or the Mavs were forced to dump Chandler and Shawn Marion, you think they’d stink all of a sudden?

See, you’re ignoring the other reality: Under the current CBA with guaranteed contracts, the Magic & Mavericks would be forced to buy those players out to get under the cap. The Lakers would have to pay $150M to the 13 players they have to dump. Think the owners are going to go for that? You’re making huge assumptions left and right here about how the new cap is going to be structured. The players are not just going to roll over and take a 20% cap cut and simultaneous destruction of the soft cap and guaranteed contracts. Not going to happen. Yes, the cap will be much lower. Yes, the owners will push for more power and likley get it. In what form does that power manifest? Will guaranteed contracts stay? Will a hard cap be imposed? Who knows. One thing is certain: if there are any drastic changes, past transactions will be grandfathered in somehow.

Your complaint that the Warriors are talentless hacks from the top down still stands… salary cap changes will not make this any better or worse.

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

-randolphforpresident

by Dubs fan in Boston on Feb 21, 2011 5:44 PM PST up reply actions

I was simply responding to your Kobe/Pau hypothetical… I wasn’t actually contending that there wouldn’t be any grandfathering. There absolutely will be (and as you correctly note, the big-money franchises will play a big part in determining how much).

But the more grandfathering there ends up being, the worse things are for the Warriors. A world with grandfathering is a world in which the league’s current superpowers remain intact… the only leaguewide difference is that there’s less financial wiggle room for everyone else. That’s a fine outcome for New Jersey (as currently constructed, at least) and Indiana and Sacramento and Minnesota and Memphis. That’s not an okay outcome for Washington and Toronto and Cleveland and Phoenix… and the Warriors.

Your complaint that the Warriors are talentless hacks from the top down still stands… salary cap changes will not make this any better or worse.

The former is obviously the bigger problem than the latter, but it’s simply not true that salary cap changes don’t matter.

Imagine two scenarios:

1) Billy Hunter Jedi-mind-tricks ownership into agreeing to a soft $80 million cap.

2) The owners mop the floor with the players and institute a hard $50 million cap, with existing contracts grandfathered in.

Now let’s ponder how each scenario would affect the Warriors (a mediocre, moderately expensive team), and the Kings (a bad, cheap team).

In scenario #1, the Warriors go into next season with $31 million in cap space, and the Kings go into next season with $53 million in cap space. Who’s in better shape? I’d say the Warriors. The Kings have much more cap space, but the Warriors (and many other teams) also have a ton. The Warriors would still have to outbid other teams for top free agents, and they might not succeed, but they’d at least be able to try, and if they really wanted a B-plus guy, they could just overpay him to the point where he’d sign, in their traditional Lee/Maggette fashion. Both teams have mountains of cap space, but the Warriors have more talent (unless Sacramento strikes gold in the draft). You’d rather be the Warriors than the Kings in that cap environment.

In scenario #2, the Warriors are only a couple hundred thousand dollars under the cap, but the Kings are still $23 million under, enough to sign a max guy and then some. Who’s in better shape? The Kings are. Neither team is talented enough to compete, but the Kings, unlike the Warriors (and most NBA teams), are in a position to offer big money to the many disgruntled free agents out there, or to swallow bad contracts in order to acquire talent in trades. The Warriors don’t have any financial flexibility. They’ve made their bed with Monta, Lee, and Biedrins, and barring a miracle trade, they’re going to have to lie in it.

The point isn’t that scenario #2 is sure to happen. The point is that teams’ cap flexibilities will shrink. And when they do, the teams that’ll be hurt the most are teams that are bad but not cheap.

Golden State Worriers: Angst & Analysis

by onlxn on Feb 21, 2011 7:40 PM PST up reply actions