ATNE Tournament, ROUND 2: 3. Quotatious v. 6. Owly

Moderators: floppymoose, Curtis Lemansky, sly

trex_8063
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 11,850
And1: 7,265
Joined: Feb 24, 2013
     

ATNE Tournament, ROUND 2: 3. Quotatious v. 6. Owly 

Post#1 » by trex_8063 » Tue May 12, 2015 5:10 pm

General/for seeding writeups

3
Quotatious
Ben Wallace
Kevin Garnett
Predrag Stojakovic
Clyde Drexler
Kevin Johnson

Brad Daugherty
Clifford Robinson
Tayshaun Prince
Hersey Hawkins
Michael Cooper

Coach: Rick Adelman
Spoiler:
Quotatious wrote:Here's why my team would be great:

The main thing is that Ben Wallace and Kevin Garnett give me GOAT level interior defense and rebounding. Wallace's average DBPM for the 3-year stretch I selected is +6.8 - he led the league in DBPM and DWS every year between '02 and '04, and his defensive splits in NPI RAPM were +2.2, +2.6 and +3.6 - he peaked at +4.6 on defense in prior informed RAPM, in 2004. His average TRB% between '02 and '04 was 21.1% - second in '02, first in '03 and third in '04. He's a two time DPOY, in '02 and '03, and finished second in '04 (also won two more, in '05 and '06). He was also one of the best shotblockers in the NBA, with 6.3% BLK.
Garnett's average DBPM between '03 and '05 was +4.4 (ranked 7th, 4th and 6th, respectively), ranked 4th in DWS in '03, and second in both '04 and '05. His average TRB% was 19.7% - ranked 4th, 2nd and 4th, respectively. Garnett obviously won the MVP in '04 (almost unanimously - he got 120 of 123 possible first place votes), and finished as a fairly close runner-up behind Duncan in '03. Garnett also had 2+ defensive splits in RAPM. KG was a fairly decent shotblocker (3.1% BLK), but it's not the most important aspect of his defense - the most important thing about Garnett's defense is his ability to disrupt pick & rolls and command his team's defense, be a vocal leader. Both Garnett and Wallace were outstanding pick & roll defenders, and Big Ben was also an elite rim protector, despite being a bit undersized for a center (but he had very long arms). Remember how great Ben and Rasheed were, defensively? Ben and Kevin would be even better.

Wallace and Garnett are both top 10 (arguably even top 5) defensive players of all-time. Think about it - we've never seen anything like it in the NBA, maybe except for Duncan/Robinson (but unlike the Spurs duo, my guys would be at their absolute peaks).

Depending on matchups, I can also start Brad Daugherty alongside KG. He's not a very good defender, but he's a certainly an excellent, polished low post scorer (21.1 ppg on 61.4% TS) , and a great passer (Garnett may be an even better passer). I plan on splitting the minutes fairly evenly between Wallace and Daugherty, because one guy brings exactly what the other lacks - Wallace is a great defender, but very poor offensive player, Daugherty is the opposite (but Brad's defense is better than Ben's offense). However, I'd rather start Ben, to set the tone defensively right from the beginning, along with KG, and then Daugherty comes in to provide an extra scoring punch. Daugherty was also a good rebounder - 10.5 rpg, 16.0% TRB.

My backup power forward is Clifford Robinson - stretch 4, good athlete, good defender. Almost 37% from beyond the arc, on over 5 attempts per game (I've selected '95-'97 versions of him, and the 3-point line was shortened all three seasons, but he was still a pretty respectable 3-point shooter even with the normal 3-point line, after '97). Capable of averaging 20+ ppg, on about league average efficiency (as he did twice during that 3-year stretch). Really bad rebounder, but I won't use him that much - KG will play about 35-37 minutes, so Cliff only plays about 11-13 minutes, and I'll make sure that Ben Wallace is on the floor with Cliff, all the time, to help mask his weakness as a rebounder.

Now, my backcourt - extremely explosive, awesome transition/open court players like Drexler and KJ - both excellent scorers and playmakers, both pretty unselfish. We're talking about consistent All-NBA 2nd team level performers, in the era when they had to compete with guards like Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson and John Stockton, among others. Drexler even made the All-NBA 1st team, at his peak in 1992.
KJ is gonna be the primary ballhandler and offensive threat in half-court offense. KJ/KG pick and roll (by the way - both guys have the same first and middle name - Kevin Maurice, which is funny) is gonna be one of the most important parts of my offensive system.
Drexler worked very well as an off-ball player, and he'll have a chance to do so on my team, plus he'll be the secondary ballhandler.

Hersey Hawkins is a great shooter (40% on 3.3 attempts in the early 90s), capable of creating his own shot, and playing decent defense. He also moves the ball well. Seems like a good backup for Clyde.

Michael Cooper brings exactly what Kevin Johnson lacks - size, versatile defense and 3-point shooting (especially in the playoffs, where he shot 45% on 3.1 attempts per game, in the mid/late 80s :o ). He was actually coming off the bench for a stacked team, for almost his entire career, so I'm sure he would accept this role.

My small forwards also complement each other pretty well. Peja Stojakovic is one of the best 3-point shooters in NBA history, he shot over 41% on almost 6 attempts per game, during the 3-year stretch I've selected. Tayshaun Prince was a very good defender (Peja certainly wasn't), with great length, but also good enough quickness to guard explosive wing players (he did a very good job guarding Kobe in the 2004 finals). Also a decent 3-pt shooter - 36.2% on 2.2 attempts per game.
Stojakovic is also comfortable playing off-ball, so I can have KJ and Drexler as my primary ballhandlers/playmakers, and even allow KG to play some point forward, at times (like he did so often in Minnesota, in the early/mid 2000s).

Finally, my team will be coached by Rick Adelman. I have three players who Adelman actually coached (Drexler and Robinson in Portland, Stojakovic in Sacramento), and I also have bigmen who are tailor-made for Adelman's Princeton offense - KG will play Chris Webber's role (he's just as good offensively, also a terrific passer/playmaker for a PF, but way better defensively), and Brad Daugherty playing Divac's/Brad Miller's role.


To be perfectly honest, I don't see any team that would be clearly superior than mine. I really like trex's, Owly's and RSCD's teams, but I think my guys could beat anybody here.

Any early power rankings, guys? Image



6

owly

Bob Lanier
Karl Malone
Grant Hill
Vince Carter
Chris Paul

Shawn Kemp
Larry Nance
Marques Johnson
Eddie Jones
Terrell Brandon

Coach: Larry Bird
Spoiler:
Owly wrote:Big picture vision/priorities for the team in no particular order (some overlap, I’ll tend to highlight the first 3 or 4 because the rest are boxscore obvious and/or already covered)

- Spacing: Can the frontline hit from 15-20 feet out? Can the guards hit the three? Then we can pull your defensive anchors out of the post, play mismatches (because no one “needs” to be in the post) and punish double teams.

- Passing: Of course we can only punish double teams if our players can pass well (see also avoiding turnovers-errors). I’ve sought to find players that are capable and willing passers. This also helps keep everyone happy.

- Defense: I didn’t necessarily target full on defensive anchors, but looked for each man to be able to guard his man at least adequately, and for the most part well, and there’s enough flexibility-versatility that we’re fine on switches, then that mitigates a bit of the need for “anchor” help defenders, though I’ve hardly abandoned shot blocking and charge taking helps here too.

- Low mistakes: I don’t want players who turn the ball over a lot, miss a lot, or amass cheap fouls. The benefits are obvious but extra possessions also means extra shots, which can’t be bad for morale.

- The skills requisite to play off the ball: Now this isn’t necessarily, are they are renowned off the ball player, because for the Jazz it made a lot of sense to have the ball in Karl Malone’s hands quite often. But do they have a good BBIQ, are they athletic/agile, do they set good screens.

- Two way: Sort of implicit in the above, but 1 way players will tend to compromise spacing and leave you playing 4 on 5 or offer an attack point to consistently scramble your defense. As such I sought players at least average on both ends.

There’s only one player with whom I think really misses the mark on my principles (obviously sometimes guys are only going to be average-ish). Kemp picks up cheap fouls and turns the ball over a lot without a great deal of passing. At that point looking at bigs I knew I’d have to accept below average in one of these areas (Brad Miller for instance would be in defense, ditto Daugherty had I went for him earlier, there are some undrafted bigs that didn’t meet all the criteria and would have been too small to play alongside Nance), still Kemp fits with spacing, offers and agile and versatile defender, can play off the ball (including elite offensive rebounding, court running and of course the alley oops) and play both ends. At the point in the draft he was taken, Kemp hit enough (most) of my requisites and represented excellent talent.

Okay to the team

Bob Lanier
74-76
His shooting - Lanier will stretch the floor and pull rival pivots out of the post. He’s a 79% FT shooter over the span selected, and it’s not difficult to find allusion to him a premier big man shooter, it’s in every bio but for instance (from the time) ...
Ebony, Jan 1978 wrote: [of Jim Chones] in fact he has a shooting range that comes close to Bob McAdoo’s and Bob Lanier’s

Complete Handbook of Pro Basketball 1975 wrote:Bob Lanier is probably the best outside shooting center in the NBA

His defense – For the spell in question Lanier was a defensive anchor, leading the league in defensive rating in ’74.
Reviews on D
The 1975 Pro Basketball Handbook from 1974 wrote:Lanier is the big difference. He played only when in the mood before last season [i.e. before 73-74 campaign]. He concentrated more on stopping other teams from penetrating and fourth in blocked shots with 247.

[individual bio]
Called "Moses" by his teammates ... For leading them out of the wilderness ...... trimmer last season ...... Defense was his biggest improvement

The 1977 Pro Basketball Handbook from 1976 wrote:Depending on who's in there, the Pistons can make you work. When one of the "whos" is either Trapp or Howard Porter, the opponents can relax a bit. But Rowe, Ford, Mengelt, Kevin Porter, Money and Lanier will get down and play some defense. Lanier, in fact often surprises people by jumping out to pick up guards or forwards. He also clogs the middle nicely.
[individual bio]
Has become a very intimidating defensive player who, like Dave Cowens, is not afraid to switch out on unsuspecting forwards and guards.

As I recall, in ’73 he lost some weight, worked out with Russell and came back a defensive force.

His passing – A 17.5 assist percentage for the span selected indicates a good/willing passer in a big. Suffice it to say Lanier can play the high or low post and create for others.

My massive pro-Lanier arguments from the top 100 thread below, not all absolutely pertinent (comparisons to Elvin Hayes, weird PER and WS/48 metrics but per minute and with a high bar called Wins Above Good).

viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1359006&p=41877452#p41877639
TL;DR His numbers aren’t too far off those of a prime Jabbar during this span (and without McAdoo’s bad non-boxscore D), his team clearly missed him in ’76, ’77 and ’78 when he was out, he was an agile and effective defender. Oh and there’s a lot of focus on D here, but Lanier could pummel players down in the post on offense too.

Karl Malone
96-98
Passing – 22 assist percentage, superb for a big man, and with low turnovers for a player with such a large shot creation (both for self and others, and with a consistent double team burden).
Floor spacing – Malone jacked up his fg% in 97 and 98 despite going to his midrange fadeaway more often.
Defense – Not a shotblocker but a well regarded post defender agile enough to cover pick and rolls well and defend out on perimeter where necessary (see below and accolades).
As a treat here’s Karl Malone’s profile from after the ’96 campaign (the worst of the three selected)
Rick Barry’s Pro Basketball Bible 96-97 wrote:Season Summary
The amazing Malone keeps on trucking, maintaining his remarkable pace – a level of consistent productivity that is unmatched by any active NBA player ... Some significant numbers: Scored 25 or more points for the ninth consecutive year (25.7, 4th in the league)... Averaged 9.9 rebounds; he’s never accumulated less than 8.9 – in his rookie year... Handed out a career-best 4.2 assists... Shot 51.9%, the ninth time he’s been over the 50% mark in an 11-year career... And by season’s end, this 33-year old had his consecutive game streak extend to 385 – registering double figures in every one of those games.
His Game
Long considered strictly a power player— and he’s firmly established as one of the league’s premier post-up threats – in recent years, Malone has taken his game outside, even to the three-point line (an impressive 40% last year)... Gets lots of jumpers off the pick-and-pop, which he executes as well as any forward in the league... And from the top of the key, he loves to drive, invariably to his right... Still, his game is more inside-out than vice-versa... Double-teamed and even triple teamed every night (an on virtually every possession), he nevertheless manages to slice through the traps, absorb the contact, and make the shot, often getting fouled in the process... Alternatively, he’ll beat the 2-team with his expert passes to spotted-up jump shooters or diving cutters; he’s a much underrated passer (registered his first triple double last year 27 points, 15 rebounds, and 10 assists vs. the Clippers)... Defensively, he often doesn’t get his due... Has perfected the strip on-the-way-up (averaged 1.7 steals) and is also an excellent post defender, willing to bang and capable of moving his feet... He also does a nice job of defending the pick-and-roll, diligently hedging and even willing to chase the little guys when they try to turn the corner... About the only criticism you can make of Malone’s game is an obvious one: in the post-season, he couldn’t make a foul shot, disconnecting on a hard-to-explain 57.4%, compared to 72.3% in the regular season (suggestion: try the underhand method. Co-author Baryy, the second greatest foul-shooter in NBA history and a master of the technique, always available for lessons).
His Attitude
By his sheer will to win, the emotional leader of the Jazz... Takes a beating every night (and gives one too), produces big numbers more regularly than anybody, but in 11 years has missed four, count ‘em, four games... In a word: phenomenal.
Needs to Work On
Foul shooting
Where he’s Headed
The Hall of Fame in the long term and for the near term, same old same old: another 25-(points-and-10(rebounds) year.
In a Nutshell
If there’s any justice in the world, he and his long-time running mate, John Stockton, will get at least one crack at the NBA title before they retire... Nobody is more deserving.

TL;DR I didn't just get a great scorer, I got a top notch passer, a good pick and pop shooter, a gritty post defender and mobile pick and roll coverer.

Grant Hill
97-99
Passing – Obvious. Point forward. Lower-middle class man’s LeBron.
Defense – Elite. Made his living primarily off his D after injuries ravaged his body. Here’s a review on his D after the ’96 campaign. He got even better the next year.
Rick Barry’s Pro Basketball Bible 96-97 wrote:But beyond his offense, what makes Hill special, a quality that also distinguishes two players he’s often compared to – Michael Jordan and Scottie Pippen – is that he plays both ends: He’s a great defender... His defensive resume includes his versatility (can cover 1s, 2s, 3s and even 4s), ability to play the passing lanes (1.3 steals), size (he’s hard to shoot over), and his willingness to front the post (lots of deflections)

Spacing/Shooting: A relative weakness, though his explosive first step means both that he often doesn’t need it and guarantees him decent airspace.

Vince Carter
Spacing/Shooting- A 40% 3 point shooter during the span selected with a fair proportion of those shots off the bounce with aggressive defensive coverage.
Passing - 3.9apg, 19.9 assist percentage and just 8.9 turnover percentage (albeit that is helped by a high usage, but the point is low mistakes, high creation)
Defense – Strong and (of course) a superb leaper, and solid footwork though lacking elite lateral mobility, my impression of Vince’s D for the span selected is roughly average, perhaps slightly above. The main point here is his capacity for upside when he isn’t being asked to carry quite such a heavy load (He “came into the league playing solid defense, a definite rarity” [Lindy’s 99-00 preview) and has been solid at the end of his career, see for instance: http://grantland.com/features/the-case- ... ing-right/ so I figure he can be better at his peak when he can combine energy/focus, athleticism and a little experience).

Chris Paul
08-? (is ‘10 so injured as to require use of ‘11? Sufficiently injured to allow it? I’ll use 08-10 numbers now just because it’s easiest, 11 would be preferable because his D is back at elite levels, though it makes his bkb-ref numbers harder to calculate and very slightly hurts those numbers because it’s weighing a full season at not quite 08-09 levels rather than 45 games)

Passing: Assist percentage 51.6, turnover percentage 12.9. Assist/Turnover ratio 4.165441176. Don’t know where to get multi-year pure point stuff. Needless to say, off the charts.
Defense: The games pre-eminent defensive point guard (see for instance recent articles about how great his D is).
Shooting/spacing: 37.7% from three with significant numbers of those off the bounce, with high defensive attention and limited time.

Coach Bird I covered when I selected him.

Okay these are getting shorter because I’ve already spent too much time on this. Will maybe enhance and add detail for my second 5 when desired / when I get a chance. Or wait until matchups are done for further details. I’ll give years and maybe quick notes now.

Kemp 94-96: Big, versatile, athletic defender. Superb rebounder. A better floor spacer than you may think.

Nance 91-93: Chose this version over earlier similarly productive models for spacing (had a deadly 18 footer at this point), lower mistakes and supreme shot blocking.

Marques Johnson 79-81: Some point forward tendencies (though not fully in that role until final of the three year span), superb offensive rebounder at the SF, low mistake player. Like Malone chips in across the boxscore.

Eddie Jones 99-01: Agile, long, athletic wing defender will generate steals and block and contest shots. Will be even better when allowed primarily to focus on that (may see significant time with “first unit”). Fares well in Across the Court’s RAPM for ’99 and ’00. Another low mistake player. Good shooter (and as shown later in career, better when not a primary focus of defensive attentions, lockout year also hurt everyone’s percentages)

Terrell Brandon 96-98: Similar to Paul, minimizes turnovers, an accurate shooter despite defences focused on him. Very quick though a little undersized. Slow pace deflates his raw numbers. Hollinger made strong claims on his offensive impact in ’02 though I’d have to compare with other WoWY numbers and understand them better, in any case he carried a crummy offensive cast in slow down system to a fourth seed.
Owly wrote:But fitting with the three year peak nature of this contest I'm going with Larry Bird

Why (given there were title winners on the board)?

- Bird's reputation ensures he commands the respect of the team (shouldn't be an issue, but when minutes get are tight with an all-time team it might help)

- Performance exceeded the talent (whether against '97 -factoring in Smits' injury - or '96) with the same core as coach already selected, Bird produced not insubstantial improvement in SRS.

- Playoff performance - Beyond the above Bird coached the '98 Pacers as close as anyone to defeating a full strength Bulls team (Riley's '92 Knicks also took it to 7 games and fwiw also posted a -3.8 per game differential; '93 Suns do a better job in differential, but this includes benefiting from a 8 point margin in triple OT win, so closer than the diff suggests and only 2-4 in the series); then too he took the 2000 Pacers to the finals and competed with the 3-peat Lakers (superior points diff, but a 2-4 loss). Overall a .615 win percentage in the playoffs is very favourable.

- Player's Coach - With elite players on an all time-y squad you don't need a ranter and raver or someone calling every play.

- Trusted (smart) people - Knew what he did best, and knew when to delegate. One instance would be bringing in Carlisle as his offensive assistant coach.

- Not antithetical to the modern game - Bird (like most ex-pros) might not be metrically inclined but his Pacers (and, okay, they had Reggie), shot and made a fair amount of three's and, at least as importantly, defended the three point line well.
"Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience." -George Carlin

"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd
Owly
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,343
And1: 3,013
Joined: Mar 12, 2010

Re: ATNE Tournament, ROUND 2: 3. Quotatious v. 6. Owly 

Post#2 » by Owly » Wed May 13, 2015 10:48 pm

Me V Q

Before the real kick off, for some peripheral stuff I put in my seedings pitch to penbeast see within the spoiler, it's generally pitching my team, though you may well be familiar by now and more specific matchup based numbers are included in the body of the post, still some points about my teams high capacity for usage isn't just a waste -with a sentence added to include a message I thought was in there but could see easily just skimming through.
Spoiler:
The elephant in the room. I’ve got a very high usage team. Whilst that means my edge in productivity by some metrics is overstated on the whole I think this is a good thing. All my players are at least reasonably capable of creating a shot so if a play breaks down and there’s not enough time to run anything I should still get a reasonable shot. Also against better teams than the ones faced in reality, and versus these better defences, more creation ability is required. The case against this would be if I had a team of poor passers, players lacking the tools to play off the ball or ego-headcases. I don’t. *(added) Then too they can focus energies saved from shot creation on D, setting picks etc*

The Numbers – First Five (%s versus the 11 teams with a fully “modern” i.e. mid 70s and on block% etc available).

My first five’s cumulative assist % is 2.625968 standard deviations above average. A part of that is having go to guys who take up a large share of the teams shots, so the total number of “teammates shots” that make up 100% is smaller for them. Nonetheless by picking strong passers at each position I feel confident that the team offense will flow well.

The other point of strength is one already alluded to in my main post. Extra (shooting) possessions, part of this as noted will be from minimizing turnovers (having a “point forward” like Hill also makes less vulnerable to any press) and despite the high rate of assists my team’s turnover percentage is better than (i.e. below) average. The other part is through creating turnovers at the other end. Effective stealers at every position lead me to cumulative 11.6 steal% from my first five, 1.846213 standard deviations above the average.

Other numbers

-Rebounding: Above average (Defensively strong, offensively below average). Offensive rebounding should improve with decreased shot creation responsibilities.

- Unweighted TS%: Superficially, somewhat weak. But this largely I think a function of era (Lanier and to a lesser degree Carter selected from relative down periods in league TS%, I think this about rules and enforcement thereof, and the skillsets which made them strong within their eras will translate). Again being more selective and more created for (with good passers), as well as steals leading to transition baskets will also boost this into an area of strength.

- Shotblocking: Weak amongst first five one area where having mixed lineups (i.e. not “1st unit, with my top 5 picks, then second unit” platooning) can help.

- Cumulative boxscore metrics- These may oversell my team because it’s a high usage and they won’t all be able to maintain that (though as noted I expect some gains in trade off for that – e.g. better shooting percentages, better offensive rebounding, more energy on D). I’ll leave PER out of it because it’s more tied in with usage. Still WS/48 total 1.099 versus an average of 0.998182. Up 1.973959 standard deviations. Second is Revis at 1.056 (+1.132045 sds).
On BPM I’m a cumulative 35.8 versus the norm of 25.20909 (up 2.182468 standard deviations). Second is Quotatious at 29.7 (+0.925441 sd).
Yes these numbers overstate my team’s superiority (they can’t maintain their usage from which some of their value comes, and BPM might like steals slightly too much and my team is strong in that area). Still I think they show my team’s massive productivity and given that these players fit within the outlined framework of passing, spacing and D I set out. On D, my DBPM and DWS are both above average.

Full team – Unweighted (versus 8 teams with full modern rosters, this no longer includes Revis, one of the stronger competitors from the first data set)

Areas of apparent weakness strengthened.

TS%, unweighted: Still sub-mean but 3rd of the 8. RSCD and Dr Spaceman break the curve, but have teams in which lesser shot creators raise the TS% disproportionately (for instance with RSCD, Korver on the second unit, plus on the “first five” the 2 highest usage guys in real life, Pierce and Bosh, are the lowest TS% guys), which isn’t to say this isn’t a legit area of strength for them, just an issue with the measure.

Blocks: Now average.

Offensive rebounding: Now clearly above average (with defensive rebounding remaining a strength, I come out second in rebounding overall to thizznation).

Areas of strength still the same (dominate in assist and steal % and cumulative box score metrics).

Note: for some opposing teams the years are assumed - where they weren't given or were given late in the process. In such cases the years chosen were an attempt to pick the best possible 3 year spell.



Positional Matchups

Lanier/Kemp – Wallace
Lanier/Kemp will drag out Wallace. [Kemp hype-job alert] Kemp’s range is pretty underrated. Even fat, washed up Kemp that didn’t have the threat of the drive to open up looks always shot over 40% on 16 foot to 3 line long twos (for the 3 years we have that data). He’s a 35% three shooter during the span selected and showed a huge improvement when he focused on it a little more in the third year (all very small samples, though this may mean he’s adversely affected by heaves), if we’re giving a trex modern adaptation period his shooting suggests a corner 3 weapon (where the line is as short as it was during the span selected). For the reasons why Kemp is getting most of his minutes versus Wallace, see the backup center matchup. Still as Kemp is still playing backup minutes there’ll still be plenty of Lanier v Wallace as the best centers in Pistons history (sorry Larry Foust) showdown. As noted Lanier too has the range to really pull Wallace out (see generic hype team hype job for some random quotes, or here’s another couple, this time from Total Basketball: The Ultimate Basketball Encyclopedia “He is still recalled as having as soft a touch from the perimeter as any big man in basketball history.” “He was a big man with a perimeter game, a left hander with a sweet touch from 20 feet on in.”). As noted in the hype jobs Lanier at his apex was an agile defender (able to switch onto forwards and guards) led the league in Drtg in ’74 (and he played as a defensive minded role player at the end of his career too). As Dr S learnt in the first round you can’t completely neutralise KG and Ben Wallace as a defensive duo, but Lanier and Kemp will take him out of his comfort zone and they’ll battle him on the boards, play the good help D and play both ends.
Oversimplified TL:DR version: 2 way versus 1-way; pulls Wallace away from the basket i.e. from boards and help D.

Malone – Garnett
Karl Malone was fairly effective versus Garnett
http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... =garneke01
Now obviously these numbers include peak Malone versus teen Garnett (though to be fair they also include late 30s and 40 Malone versus peak KG, indeed 40 Malone in LA and injured puts up way below the norm numbers), but Malone shoots about 5% better from the field (indeed his fg% versus KG is better than versus the league for that same span), then increases the efficiency gap by shooting more fts (in absolute terms, in particular more per fga).
http://bkref.com/tiny/FY01P
http://bkref.com/tiny/lV646
Even old Malone versus two of the years selected looks (at an admittedly cursory glance) to be playing KG fairly even (efficiency edge again though by this point, Garnett’s edge on the boards is more pronounced).
If we want to pull KG out Malone has the range to do so but I also like the strength of Malone in the post versus Garnett.

Hill – Stojakovic

Q acknowledged Peja’s D as a concern versus Worthy, and if he isn’t harmed by the short leash he was on last time, he will be now. With his size Peja was more able to defend on the interior than a devastating first step slasher like Hill. As a relative defensive weak point he might be target to some extra screens from Malone and Lanier to knock him off his game. Hill was also a premier defender (see my general hype for the scouting report comparisons to Jordan, Pippen) and capable of keeping up with and contesting Peja on D. The spoiler at the top notes how my selection of high usage players (and the ones chosen in particular) is an asset, one point being increased focus on D.
Oversimplified TL;DR 2 way versus 1-way

Carter/Jones – Drexler
I’ll let Larry decide the better matchup here. Carter obviously offers the greater offensive punch versus a guy whose boxscore numbers oversell his defensive ability, but if we feel the need to put the clamps on Drexler Jones offers a premier wing defender.

Paul – KJ
In Qs last matchup I think KJ was a key point and was underestimated by his opponent. Still here I think Paul has the substantial edge. Beyond the crazy metrics (which comparatively, put the ordinarily excellent looking numbers of KJ in the shade), Paul not only got the defensive accolades, he’s been a really good defender (see for instance http://grantland.com/features/department-of-defense/) and even if you’re one of those who thinks maybe he now gets by on reputation to get his defensive accolades, you don’t get “honorary” all-D teams until you’ve earned your first few and I’ve got young Paul. On the other hand young model KJ was a fair defender but no more (Graded by the Rick Barry Scouting Handbooks after the relevant campaigns as a B, B and B+ defender on a scale from D to AAA).
Oversimplified TL:DR version: 2 way versus 1-way

Lanier (/Kemp?) v Daugherty
Mostly, perhaps ideally entirely, Lanier here. At 263-265lbs, Daugherty’s near 20 pound weight advantage combined with his post skill would make a tricky single cover for Kemp. Lanier at around 260 would be more able to force Daugherty to have to really fight for position.

Nance v Clifford Robinson
The most notable edge here is rebounding. Larry isn’t a great rebounder but he wipes the floor with Robinson’s 7.8 Trb%. Robinson’s metrics suggest a decent player but not an exceptional (or notably good) one (and as he stepped up his usage he became less focussed on D, also in general he regressed very badly in the playoffs), Nance on the other hand looks like a difference maker.

Marques Johnson v Prince
Prince is a nice defender (though the bigs drove that Pistons defense), but I’m not convinced he’s forceful enough keep Marques off the boards (or out of the paint generally). As with the above matchup this one looks like somewhat of a mismatch to me.

Jones/Carter v Hawkins
As before I’ll allow Larry to play the matchups as he sees fit. Vince or Jones are both tall (and athletic) guards who will be able to obscure Hawkins looks. Hawkins is a good guard, my guys are a bit better.

Brandon/Paul vs Cooper
Paul might start taking a couple more of Brandon’s minutes depending on how things are going. In any case whilst Cooper is a strong defender and the size mismatch will have some advantages at roughly 30 Cooper is slowing a little and won’t always be able to keep up with my dynamo pgs. As more of a conservative, relief ball-handler, Cooper may be somewhat turnover-prone and/or reluctance to push the envelope if/when we do gamble. Either way Bird will be encouraged to look at/consider occasionally pressing and pestering Cooper.

Obviously 2-way versus one way summaries are generally oversimplifications (one case could be, for instance, 1.5 way versus 1 way or whatever, even that oversimplifying, for instance Ben Wallace’s typical impact on the one end is massive). Still, I do feel my team is the better one, and especially with my shooting bigs, plus also good defenders on KJ and Peja, a good matchup.

Approx minutes distribution (rough, and Larry has some tinkering space to match-up as he sees fit)
Lanier 32mpg, Kemp 16mpg
Malone 35mpg, Nance 13mpg
Hill 30mpg, Johnson 18mpg
Carter 24mpg, Jones 24mppg
Paul 35mpg, Brandon 13mpg

Team Level (by the metrics) – Cumulative (added) numbers based on 2/3s minutes to starters 1/3 to reserves

TS% unweighted (as covered in the additional seeding pitch spoilered at the top of this post, I think this is low for my team both because Carter and particularly Lanier played in low league TS% eras, but their superiority versus league norms is more indicative and because with my team’s excess capacity for usage, being more selective will allow %s to rise; for both teams unweighted average will have its flaws)
Owly: 2.833333
Quotatious: 2.816333

Rebounding
Oreb%
Owly: 31.9
Quotatious: 30.43333

Dreb%
Owly: 88.33333
Quotatious: 84.46667

Trb%
Owly: 60.4
Quotatious: 58.2

Assist%
Owly: 127.7333
Quotatious: 97.23333

Steal%
Owly: 11.56667
Quotatious: 10.06667

Block%
Owly: 9.433333
Quotatious: 9.833333

Turnover%
Owly: 61.16667 (Lanier’s turnover % approximated at 14% based on first 3 years available)
Quotatious: 62.33333

Boxscore-Composites
PER (obviously favours scorers/usage see spoiler at top of this post for discussion on this)
Owly: 119.6
Quotatious: 102.2333

WS/48
Owly: 1.049667
Quotatious: 0.927

BPM
Owly: 31.86667
Quotatious: 23.96667 (incidentally this is the 2nd best amongst those teams for which this number is calculable, at least I think it is; not sure if I updated RevisIsland's team to this group when I found out he was picking a version of Unseld where we have BPM, rather his first three years; in any case it's an strong showing from Q - just checked Revis is at 24.76666667).

Okay that's all I've got time for for now, may modify later or probably just add in additional posts. Good luck Q.
trex_8063
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 11,850
And1: 7,265
Joined: Feb 24, 2013
     

Re: ATNE Tournament, ROUND 2: 3. Quotatious v. 6. Owly 

Post#3 » by trex_8063 » Thu May 14, 2015 2:08 am

Compelling case. The match-ups do appear to favor Owly, although was looking at some H2H's for Hill v. Peja (I know not the most reliable of methods, particularly with Hill's spotty appearance in '01-'03, though Owly did use H2H's to support Malone vs. Garnett), and it wasn't quite what I expected. Peja actually fared quite well against Hill. Although---to be fair to Hill in this---MOST of those match-ups came during Hill's tenure in PHX, where defense was less of a focus by coaching, and where the pace was accelerated.

I hope Quot chimes in; this is another very interesting match-up.
"Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience." -George Carlin

"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd
User avatar
Quotatious
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 16,999
And1: 11,142
Joined: Nov 15, 2013

Re: ATNE Tournament, ROUND 2: 3. Quotatious v. 6. Owly 

Post#4 » by Quotatious » Fri May 15, 2015 8:09 pm

First of all, very impressive write-up by Owly. Well done. I have to admit that his team has the edge, talent-wise.

CP3 >> KJ
Drexler > Carter
Hill >> Peja
Malone <= Garnett (personally I think that Garnett is better, but I can put them as equals - you can certainly make an argument for Mailman)
Lanier > Wallace

Kemp = Daugherty (more or less even, I can see Kemp having a slight edge if you put heavy emphasis on defense - on the other hand, Daugherty was a far better passer)
Nance >>> Robinson
Marques >>> Prince
Jones >= Hawkins
Brandon > Cooper

So, Owly's team has the edge in 7 of 10 pairs (I'll give you EJ over Hawkins, because Jones' great defense along with solid offensive game is probably a bit more valuable in this tournament than Hersey's great shooting. It's still close, though.

That being said, I'm not sure how well Owly's team would work as a unit, because unlike me, he doesn't have clearly defined roles. His team is extremely talented, but it's really an All-Star/Olympic type of team. Most of these players need a lot of shot attempts, so someone (and not just one guy, but at least two or three) would be clearly underutilized. It's not a problem on my team. I feel like my players would be able to give close to 100% of their potential, playing together, while Owly's team is more of a state of anarchy.

Still, I don't think my team is at a huge disadvantage in terms of matchups. Wallace should be able to slow down Lanier, and he's a better rebounder than him, too (although Bob is pretty good on the boards, as well). Wallace and Daugherty are still going to play about 24 minutes each. Daugherty should be able to hold his own against Lanier. Both are highly skilled offensive centers. Garnett vs Malone would be an awesome matchup, but I think that KG's elite all-around skillset and defensive anchor capability is better suited on a stacked team that Malone's game, which was also very good in basically all areas, but he clearly wasn't as good of a rebounder, playmaker, ballhandler or defender as KG, and knowing that Malone often struggled in pressure situations, in addition to the fact that he probably wouldn't take nearly as many shots as usual (at least I guess so, Owly can correct me if I'm wrong, but even if he decides to let Karl be a volume scorer, I'm not really scared of it, either, because KG is one of a few guys who can slow him down, plus he can score on Malone here and there, as well). Drexler and Carter can just play each other 1 on 1, they're fairly close (although I think that Clyde was a bit better). and even though CP3 is clearly better than KJ, Johnson was an elite talent who can go at it with Paul (he can certainly score on CP3, but unfortunately Paul should be able to score more easily on Johnson, than vice versa...). Grant Hill/Marques Johnson vs Peja is just tough...I'll use Tayshaun and Peja for about 24 minutes each, in this matchup, hoping that Prince can slow those stars down a bit. Stojakovic is still going to see quite a few minutes because I need a good outside shooter.
KJ is going to play about 30 minutes, Cooper 18, so KJ's playing time is going to shrink a little (I said I wanted him to play about 32-33 minutes against Dr Spaceman in the previous round), because I want someone who can make CP3's life a bit more difficult with his size advantage (same with Terrell Brandon, who's probably even smaller than CP3, and certainly not as good).

Kemp and Nance are pretty big problems for my team. KG can guard both, but Cliff Robinson, even though he was pretty good defensively, doesn't have the size or strength to be effective guarding them close to the basket, although he's very quick for a PF and should do a good job guarding any of the opposing power forwards 15 feet from the basket and further. I'd also like Robinson to guard Marques and Hill for a few minutes (especially Marques), but obviously Prince is going to be my best bet against these guys. Good thing is that Robinson's 3-point range will force Malone/Kemp/Nance (or whoever is going to guard him, I guess it's going to be one of these guys) to go out on the perimeter, otherwise he'll make them pay. Robinson will get about 12-13 minutes, 35-36 for Garnett. Same with Drexler (will play about 35-36) and Hawkins (12-13).

Seems like Owly built his team based on stats (I can't argue with facts, obviously), and talent. I'm jost hoping that my team's apparently superior chemistry and clearly defined roles will be a factor in my team's favor.
penbeast0
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Posts: 28,445
And1: 8,679
Joined: Aug 14, 2004
Location: South Florida
 

Re: ATNE Tournament, ROUND 2: 3. Quotatious v. 6. Owly 

Post#5 » by penbeast0 » Sun May 17, 2015 2:56 am

One thing I think should be pointed out. 1974 for Lanier was a massive outlier defensively. His defensive win shares were 7.1 and Drtg was 4.1 . . . he barely reached half that figure again with a career second best of 3.8 and 1.8 respectively. Other than 74, that's Amare Stoudemire territory. Similarly, while the Pistons were 3rd in the league in defensive rating in 74, they were never even in the top half of the league defensively and the next year (75), they were 17th out of 18, and in 76 were 16th out of 18. IN fact, the next time they reached the top half of the league defensively was the year they traded away Lanier and replaced him with career mediocrity Kent Benson.

This says to me that what I remember from my eye test was true; Lanier was a lazy defender and 1974 was a fluke outlier. So, if Owly is counting on Lanier's defense as a key part of his writeup, I think that presents a huge question mark. Now, admittedly covering Ben Wallace is about as easy an assignment as Lanier could hope for but he wasn't much of a help defender either.
“Most people use statistics like a drunk man uses a lamppost; more for support than illumination,” Andrew Lang.
Owly
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,343
And1: 3,013
Joined: Mar 12, 2010

Re: ATNE Tournament, ROUND 2: 3. Quotatious v. 6. Owly 

Post#6 » by Owly » Sun May 17, 2015 4:01 pm

penbeast0 wrote:One thing I think should be pointed out. 1974 for Lanier was a massive outlier defensively. His defensive win shares were 7.1 and Drtg was 4.1 . . . he barely reached half that figure again with a career second best of 3.8 and 1.8 respectively. Other than 74, that's Amare Stoudemire territory. Similarly, while the Pistons were 3rd in the league in defensive rating in 74, they were never even in the top half of the league defensively and the next year (75), they were 17th out of 18, and in 76 were 16th out of 18. IN fact, the next time they reached the top half of the league defensively was the year they traded away Lanier and replaced him with career mediocrity Kent Benson.

This says to me that what I remember from my eye test was true; Lanier was a lazy defender and 1974 was a fluke outlier. So, if Owly is counting on Lanier's defense as a key part of his writeup, I think that presents a huge question mark. Now, admittedly covering Ben Wallace is about as easy an assignment as Lanier could hope for but he wasn't much of a help defender either.

Needless to say I disagree with this characterisation of Lanier.

Was '74 an outlier? Yes it's clearly his best year. It's one third of the Lanier I have, and in him I get a guy with 3 blocks and 1.4 steals a game a guy in the top 2 in Drtg (1st) and DBPM (2nd). Does he match that again? No, but I suspect (sadly) no one is envisioning that Lanier for my team. Does that mean he was Amar’e/Benson for the rest of the span selected? Far from it. As I'll show he was having a large impact on the team, that he was for instance was still a pretty good shot blocker in '75 (less so when he wasn't 100%, but given he meet the injury thresholds I'm assuming as with all players I've got a healthy Lanier, at worst he's playing the average of the 3 year span, which is pretty good), that the above comparisons are (badly) flawed and Lanier got a bum rap based on misfortune (and being too heavy) earlier in his career.

As I have said in the past (indeed in the context of discussing Lanier both in my generic pitch in the spoiler and in the top 100 project) Drtg is noisy and far from perfect. Still I think using team ratings as a measure of individuals is more problematic there’s large issues primarily teammates, then also noise. Teammates here in the sense they weren't very good. Noise in the sense of measuring an individual by team defensive performance which is so influenced by the four other players, 5 when said player is off court and coaching etc...

On teammates.
1) Look at them. Don't recall them? Through his prime http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... der_by=dws
From what I've read Mengelt was pretty good because he was so all out, beyond that some were probably fine/adequate and some weren't. There’s a lack of continuity and in particular a lack of continuity in good players and organisation/coaching/chemistry (Bing was irate by the time he left, they pick Marvin Barnes from the ABA, a player as poor as Curtis Rowe somehow had the leverage to holdout and demand a trade. It was a mess).

2) With without. In large samples Lanier was having a substantial impact in '76-'78
The difference with him to without him (per game in points diff) was ...

'76: 5.204861111
'77: 6.288194444
'78: 4.316080055

This is from a guy hitting his apex in '74. In '75 still more or less as healthy as he ever was (he was injured late in his NCAA career and the Pistons hurried him back in his rookie year, which may have altered his career trajectory, but I digress), he's still blocking more than two shots a game, and I think for those first two years of my span ('74, '75) he's having a larger impact overall and a larger impact on D (than for ’76-’78). But even if it were just at these levels, I just don't buy that his impact was exclusively offensive.

Then too, I don’t your analogy/comparison/whatever with Amar’e stacks up in terms of contemporary reputations (or indeed how much they were missed when absent). As cited here and in the top 100 project the Hollander handbooks consistently noted throughout his prime his defensive prowess and in particular his coming out and guarding guards on the perimeter on switches, which just isn’t what lazy defenders do cf: viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1359554#p41917844 (Also STAT was playing with Marion, Bell and Diaw, which made their overall team D respectable/okay).

I could plausibly buy your version of Lanier as accurate through ’73. Maybe, maybe, to a lesser extent at the end of the 70s. I can buy that this early picture of Lanier (overweight, less focused on D, less consistent on D and perceived as a somewhat of a disappointment particularly through a disappointing rookie year in a strong draft class, all to some degree interconnected with that early injury) colouring popular perceptions of Lanier but my most reliable source of the time (Hollander handbooks) has Lanier as someone who “clogs the middle nicely” “very intimidating defensive player who, like Dave Cowens, is not afraid to switch out on unsuspecting forwards and guards” during his prime. Unless you’ve got more contemporary sources for prime Lanier as a lazy, non-helping defender, I’d take what I have (the stats plus Hollander) as the more persuasive view.

For whatever it’s worth his college coach Larry Weise, upon Lanier leaving college “I’ve never known a more unselfish player. It may sound trite, but I would call him the complete basketball player.” And he embraced a non-scoring role in Milwaukee and fought on in the hopes of winning a title despite a crumbling body, so I don’t recognise the “lazy” vision of Lanier. As before maybe a little early on (though injuries, franchise culture maybe didn’t help) and perhaps frustrated by the end in Detroit, but I can’t help but feel you’ve been coloured (perhaps indirectly by others perceptions; Lanier's "conventional" historical standing is nowhere near I believe the evidence suggests it should be) by early perceptions that he was a “big bum” or whatever and the fact Detroit weren’t good, because when talking about his play, it his prime, the numbers and comments of the time (of the limited few I have access to) seem persuaded he was trying, he was very good, and he was a good and agile defender.

Regarding the semi-implied Lanier for Benson as causation of defensive improvement, the trade happened mid-season (whilst Lanier was injured) and with, or without Benson, they were less competitive than they had been early in the season with (a hobbled) Lanier, not that they were good with him, and as ever there’s plenty of noise going on, you could argue the turning point was before Lanier’s absence, but after that point they more often than not lost by more than 10 points (they won 7; had 18 games, including those wins, in which they did not lose by 10 or more; and lost 27 by 10 or more – fwiw with Benson, over 17 games it’s 1 win; 8 games of not losing by 10 or more and 9 of losing by 10 or more). Such was the turnover in Detroit between seasons that any allusions that imply causation or indeed try to draw any meaningful comparison between Lanier and Benson are therefore massively fraught and I would suggest impossible; even within that season, as I said there’s a lot of noise around. But let’s look at Milwaukee for the final 26 games – those games with Lanier, and Lanier played in them all, they go +287, or +11.03846154 per game. Before that point, over 56 games they had been +36 or 0.642857143 per game. So if you’re going to take Lanier’s departure as anything I’d take it as an affirmation of his large impact, all the more so when he isn’t asked to singled-handedly carry the load.
penbeast0
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Posts: 28,445
And1: 8,679
Joined: Aug 14, 2004
Location: South Florida
 

Re: ATNE Tournament, ROUND 2: 3. Quotatious v. 6. Owly 

Post#7 » by penbeast0 » Mon May 18, 2015 8:38 pm

We are only talking about Lanier's defense; his offense was All-NBA caliber while Benson was, as I said, a career mediocrity. It's not surprising that Lanier is appreciably better than Benson overall; I just think from (a) having watched him during his career and (b) his statisical impact -- for me mainly team defensive numbers since they seem to me to be a lot simpler and easier to understand than things like Drtg -- that Lanier was not a good defensive center and didn't close out well.

I understand that many observers who are better basketball minds and saw him more often than I did feel differently; but I thought I would chime in with that since you made Lanier's defensive prowess a piece of your writeup. I made a similar argument in the Top 100 project with some very active dissent then as well.
“Most people use statistics like a drunk man uses a lamppost; more for support than illumination,” Andrew Lang.
trex_8063
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 11,850
And1: 7,265
Joined: Feb 24, 2013
     

Re: ATNE Tournament, ROUND 2: 3. Quotatious v. 6. Owly 

Post#8 » by trex_8063 » Tue May 19, 2015 3:33 am

I'd really like to get the ball rolling with a vote, but man this match-up is a tough one!

I may have overrated Lanier's defense when I gave him a grade of "Good", but I think penbeast is overly-harsh on him, if for now other reason that the 3-year span Owly's claiming includes '74. To say the rest of Lanier's career (or more importantly the rest of this 3-year span) is in Amar'e Stoudemire territory is a bit of an exaggeration. His next-best defensive year ('75, also included in Owly's span) is in the vicinity of Stoudemire's BEST defensive years in terms of DWS and in relative DRtg, but still significantly above anything Stoudemire ever posted in way of DBPM. At any rate, I still feel we can at least give '74-'76 Lanier a grade of "average" for defense.

Just wanted to have that said. As to who to vote for.....I think I may need to break this down in very simple terms and just assign the edge in various game aspects and see where that leads me.

Post scoring: edge Owly
Perimeter scoring: small edge Owly
Rebounding: my gut says small edge Quotatious, despite the stats Owly posted (maybe give the starters more of a 70-72% weight??); the combo of KG and Big Ben (and Drexler, an awesome O-rebounding SG) makes me think he's going to have a slight rebounding edge, even though Owly's got the better rebounding bench
3pt shooting: slight advantage Quotatious
Spacing: wash
Play-making: edge (probably small edge) Owly
Post defense and rim protection: edge Quotatious
Pick n' roll defense: edge Quotatious
General Perimeter defense: small edge Owly


Damn......that didn't really make the decision easier. :-?
I need to think on this just a touch longer.....
"Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience." -George Carlin

"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd
Owly
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,343
And1: 3,013
Joined: Mar 12, 2010

Re: ATNE Tournament, ROUND 2: 3. Quotatious v. 6. Owly 

Post#9 » by Owly » Tue May 19, 2015 4:10 pm

trex_8063 wrote:I'd really like to get the ball rolling with a vote, but man this match-up is a tough one!

I may have overrated Lanier's defense when I gave him a grade of "Good", but I think penbeast is overly-harsh on him, if for now other reason that the 3-year span Owly's claiming includes '74. To say the rest of Lanier's career (or more importantly the rest of this 3-year span) is in Amar'e Stoudemire territory is a bit of an exaggeration. His next-best defensive year ('75, also included in Owly's span) is in the vicinity of Stoudemire's BEST defensive years in terms of DWS and in relative DRtg, but still significantly above anything Stoudemire ever posted in way of DBPM. At any rate, I still feel we can at least give '74-'76 Lanier a grade of "average" for defense.

Just wanted to have that said. As to who to vote for.....I think I may need to break this down in very simple terms and just assign the edge in various game aspects and see where that leads me.

Post scoring: edge Owly
Perimeter scoring: small edge Owly
Rebounding: my gut says small edge Quotatious, despite the stats Owly posted (maybe give the starters more of a 70-72% weight??); the combo of KG and Big Ben (and Drexler, an awesome O-rebounding SG) makes me think he's going to have a slight rebounding edge, even though Owly's got the better rebounding bench
3pt shooting: slight advantage Quotatious
Spacing: wash
Play-making: edge (probably small edge) Owly
Post defense and rim protection: edge Quotatious
Pick n' roll defense: edge Quotatious
General Perimeter defense: small edge Owly


Damn......that didn't really make the decision easier. :-?
I need to think on this just a touch longer.....

70-30 weighted rebounding
BW 21.1
KG 19.7
PS 8.4
CD 10.3
KJ 5.5
Starters 65


BD 16
CR 7.8
TP 7.9
HH 5.7
MC 6.6
Bench 44
70-30: 58.7

BL 17.1
KM 16.6
GH 12.5
VC 8
KJ 7.3
Starters 61.5


SK 19.8
LN 13.5
MJ 11.5
LJ 6.9
TB 6.5
Bench 58.2

70-30: 60.51

70-30: Q 58.7; Me 60.51
72-28: Q 59.12; Me 60.576

Take it all the way to 80-20 (38.4 minutes starters - 9.6 for the bench) and my lead is very narrow (Q 60.8; Me 60.84)

Use actual Minutes
Q
BW 21.1 24m (.5)
KG 19.7 35-36m (0.739583333)
PS 8.4 24m (.5)
CD 10.3 35-36m (0.739583333)
KJ 5.5 30m (0.625)

BD 16 24m (.5)
CR 7.8 12-13m (0.260416667)
TP 7.9 24m (.5)
HH 5.7 12-13m (0.260416667)
MC 6.6 18m (.375)

Q: Minutes based rebounding % 58.315625

O
BL 17.1 32 (0.666666667)
KM 16.6 35 (0.729166667)
GH 12.5 30 (0.625)
VC 8 24 (0.5)
KJ 7.3 35 (0.729166667)

SK 19.8 16 (0.333333333)
LN 13.5 13 (0.270833333)
MJ 11.5 18 (0.375)
LJ 6.9 24 (0.5)
TB 6.5 13 (0.270833333)

O: Minutes based rebounding % 60.41875
-------
I think I've probably got a spacing edge too (SFs are my only, relatively mild, problem and both guards are always good shooters including at very least pretty good out to three despite a shot creation burden, one that they won't have to support here, getting more shots off screens and both bigs always good shooters to - at least - about 19-20; versus Ben Wallace, Drexler a meh shooter and KJ's range to 19 feet).

Q does have better pick and roll D (at least on the first unit; though all my bigs are at very least solid in this area, Daugherty isn't), but I'd be inclined to note I've got better pick and roll/pop O with more options (Paul a better outside shooter than KJ, as is Brandon tbh; all my bigs are viable threats to pop, most are strong enough for very solid screens (Nance a bit slender) and all can get to the hoop quickly and finish well there.
trex_8063
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 11,850
And1: 7,265
Joined: Feb 24, 2013
     

Re: ATNE Tournament, ROUND 2: 3. Quotatious v. 6. Owly 

Post#10 » by trex_8063 » Thu May 21, 2015 2:20 am

Your above post does tempt me to regrade rebounding to a wash/tie......though my gut still kinda says Quotatious is going to win the battle of the boards slightly.

fwiw, Hill's TREB% of the period you selected is somewhat inflated, imo, as result of there being precious little in the way of other relevant rebounders on those teams:
'97 Pistons: This is the year that in particular skews his number upward. Thorpe is barely adequate while filling a combo of PF/C (13.3 reb/100 poss, 14.5% TREB). Ratliff has a TREB of 12.3% and 11.3 reb/100 possessions while playing 17 mpg of PF/C. That's really not acceptable. Rick Mahorn rebounds OK for the C (or PF/C), but averages <10 mpg. Grant Long is a poor rebounding PF. And then there were absolutely no relevant backcourt rebounders.
'98 Pistons: We see Hill's rebounding numbers take a significant dip (per 100 from 13.0 down to 10.3, TREB from 14.2% down to 11.3%) merely for the presence of Bison Dele and the improvement/increased use of Jerome Williams. Jerome Williams was a very fine rebounding PF, though playing <17 mpg at this point. Dele decent, but hardly a stalwart rebounder at the C position.
'99 Pistons: Jerome Williams' role increases a little more, but still <24 mpg and also at the expense of Dele's minutes apparently. Otherwise get some limited minutes from Eric Montross and post-injury Loy Vaught (who range from "fair" to "decent" as rebounders). And still nothing in the way of rebounding backcourt. Hill's TREB is 11.7%.

In short, I don't think the 12.5% is an entirely accurate representative of what he was as a rebounder. Kevin Garnett didn't exactly have strong rebounders present in '03-'05, but even his teammates were better than that. Ditto Ben Wallace.

Also (and you can call this era bias if you like), but I'm less convinced of Lanier's rebounding prowess, having come pre-merger.
"Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience." -George Carlin

"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd
trex_8063
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 11,850
And1: 7,265
Joined: Feb 24, 2013
     

Re: ATNE Tournament, ROUND 2: 3. Quotatious v. 6. Owly 

Post#11 » by trex_8063 » Sat May 23, 2015 2:15 pm

Quotatious wrote:.


Closest match-up of the 2nd round, imo (with the possible exception of my own!).

I've gone back and forth on who to vote for. I've been tempted (in a very uncertain manner) to give it to your squad, Quot, largely on the basis of better defense and (imo) marginally better rebounding. Though I can quote you as saying elsewhere that "offense beats defense"; and Owly's team has the better offense (although prime KJ with no hand-checking might be the ace-in-the-hole????).

Anyway, can you give one more plug for you team, tell me why I should vote them over Owly's squad?
"Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience." -George Carlin

"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd
User avatar
Quotatious
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 16,999
And1: 11,142
Joined: Nov 15, 2013

Re: ATNE Tournament, ROUND 2: 3. Quotatious v. 6. Owly 

Post#12 » by Quotatious » Sat May 23, 2015 6:00 pm

trex_8063 wrote: Though I can quote you as saying elsewhere that "offense beats defense";

Yes, but it's more about players, not teams (so, for example a GOAT level offensive player with weak defense is better than a GOAT level defensive player with weak offense - let's use Nash and Mutombo (or Ben Wallace, if you think that Mutombo's offense is too good, relative to Nash's defense) - Nash is a clearly superior player, I'm sure you would agree with that (both are top 5-ish all-time on offense and defense, respectively - top 10 for sure).

When it comes to teams, it gets more complicated, because a lot depends on how well those great offensive players would fit together, it's definitely not as simple as saying that the more talented (on paper) offensive team is automatically the better offensive team (in reality, on the court).

trex_8063 wrote:and Owly's team has the better offense (although prime KJ with no hand-checking might be the ace-in-the-hole????).

Owly's team is more talented offensively, that's for sure, I'm not gonna say it's not, if it's actually pretty obvious, but I think that an All-Star/Olympic type team (that's what Owly's team really is, it's like Team USA) wouldn't necessarily "click" as well as my squad, where I have more clearly defined roles, and guys who are clear-cut stars (Garnett, Drexler, KJ, also Daugherty off the bench) and role players (Big Ben, Cliff, Cooper, in this situation even Peja and Hawk are role players).

KJ with no handchecking would definitely be a better player than he actually was, he would be really tough to contain even for such a good, smart defender as CP3.

trex_8063 wrote:Anyway, can you give one more plug for you team, tell me why I should vote them over Owly's squad?

Basically I think that chemistry matters, and my team's stars would be better utilized than Owly's, because on Owly's team, every single player would have to seriously cut down on his FGA, so even great scorers like Malone or Carter (or Marques or Hill etc.) wouldn't be able to take enough shots to really hurt my team (and if one of Owly's players - Malone being the top candidate for it, would try to score in a high volume, I could see the rest of his team not being happy with that).

I also think that I have the better coach - Larry Bird is actually a great choice for Owly's team, because he should be able to command his players' respect (considering that he was a better player than any of them, only with Karl Malone and maybe Chris Paul being somewhat close), but as far as real coaching skills, X's and O's are concerned, Adelman easily beats him (remember that Dick Harter was often the real coach for Bird's Pacers, Larry was just more of a motivator).

So, I see Owly's team improvising a lot, not running a lot of plays, while my team would be more clearly defined not only in terms of player's roles, but also in terms of gameplan/system. Adelman's Princeton offense allowed his players a lot of freedom, but they were also running some set plays (like for example there seemed to be a clearly defined pattern as far as Doug Christie's cuts to the basket from Webber's passes - there's one major difference here - my team has Clyde Drexler instead of Doug Christie, as a cutter - that's a MAJOR difference in my team's favor, compared to the early 2000s Kings - KG is equally adept as Webber, when it comes to mid/high post playmaking).
trex_8063
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 11,850
And1: 7,265
Joined: Feb 24, 2013
     

Re: ATNE Tournament, ROUND 2: 3. Quotatious v. 6. Owly 

Post#13 » by trex_8063 » Sat May 23, 2015 7:39 pm

OK, fine points. That works for me.

Again, I want it clear that this one is super-close; quite simply my gut was leaning toward Quot's team, in part for reasoning that he just mentioned. I really just needed one last nudge. Vote: Quotatious (sorry Owly).

And btw, if we don't get some additional votes, match-ups will be decided by me alone, and we won't be able to declare a winner between me and Warspite at all (obv can't vote in our own match-up).
"Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience." -George Carlin

"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd
SkyHookFTW
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,400
And1: 3,097
Joined: Jul 26, 2014
         

Re: ATNE Tournament, ROUND 2: 3. Quotatious v. 6. Owly 

Post#14 » by SkyHookFTW » Sun May 24, 2015 1:35 pm

I'm not going to rehash the excellent write ups. After looking at all the write ups, one thing really stands out to me, and that is Ben Wallace. I don't like players who play the center position and can't score. Too many times I watched games with Ben Wallace, and that team too many times seems like it's playing 4 against 5 on the offensive end. That is the tipping point for me, and the reason I vote Team Owly.
"It's scarier than Charles Barkley at an all you can eat buffet." --Shaq on Shark Week
"My secret to getting rebounds? It's called go get the damn ball." --Charles Barkley

Return to Fantasy Basketball Leagues