yardbarker

NCAA Wiretap Headlines

Looking at the numbers . . .

Moderators: LyricalRico, pineappleheadindc, WizStorm, nate33, miller31time

Post#101 Re: Looking at the numbers . . .
Mon Dec 10, 2012 2:12 pm by Nivek

This week's numbers are up at the blog, PLUS information from my ongoing investigation into The Curse of Les Boulez (adapted from my post in the curse thread CCJ started).

Improvers this week: Cartier Martin, Jordan Crawford (to ABOVE AVERAGE), Bradley Beal and Seraphin. Seraphin's improvement still leaves him below replacement level. I'd love to see Crawford at least maintain what he's been able to do thus far. He's ALMOST at league average offensive efficiency. He needs to improve defensively, but he's making progress.

On the other side: Nene and Webster. Webster got into the starting lineup and did next to nothing.

Hoping to get a look at Crawford's historical comps sometime this week.
"A lot of what we call talent is the desire to practice."
-- Malcolm Gladwell

Check out my blog about the Wizards, movies, writing, music, TV, sports, and whatever else comes to mind.
Nivek





Head Coach
User avatar
Posts: 6,897
And1: 697
Joined: Sep 29, 2010
Top

Post#102 Re: Looking at the numbers . . .
Mon Dec 10, 2012 2:41 pm by GhostsOfGil

Nivek wrote:This week's numbers are up at the blog, PLUS information from my ongoing investigation into The Curse of Les Boulez (adapted from my post in the curse thread CCJ started).

Improvers this week: Cartier Martin, Jordan Crawford (to ABOVE AVERAGE), Bradley Beal and Seraphin. Seraphin's improvement still leaves him below replacement level. I'd love to see Crawford at least maintain what he's been able to do thus far. He's ALMOST at league average offensive efficiency. He needs to improve defensively, but he's making progress.

On the other side: Nene and Webster. Webster got into the starting lineup and did next to nothing.

Hoping to get a look at Crawford's historical comps sometime this week.


Kev, can you explain how Emeka Okafor is rated so highly in your system?
GhostsOfGil
General Manager
User avatar
Posts: 8,254
And1: 729
Joined: Jul 5, 2006
Top

Post#103 Re: Looking at the numbers . . .
Mon Dec 10, 2012 2:48 pm by Nivek

GhostsOfGil wrote:
Nivek wrote:This week's numbers are up at the blog, PLUS information from my ongoing investigation into The Curse of Les Boulez (adapted from my post in the curse thread CCJ started).

Improvers this week: Cartier Martin, Jordan Crawford (to ABOVE AVERAGE), Bradley Beal and Seraphin. Seraphin's improvement still leaves him below replacement level. I'd love to see Crawford at least maintain what he's been able to do thus far. He's ALMOST at league average offensive efficiency. He needs to improve defensively, but he's making progress.

On the other side: Nene and Webster. Webster got into the starting lineup and did next to nothing.

Hoping to get a look at Crawford's historical comps sometime this week.


Kev, can you explain how Emeka Okafor is rated so highly in your system?


No.











j/k

Okafor doesn't offer much on offense, but his usage is lower than average and his efficiency is at a point where he's still adding some value offensively. Where he gets most of his rating is from 3 categories where he's average or above average this season: rebounding (especially offensive rebounding), steals and blocks.
"A lot of what we call talent is the desire to practice."
-- Malcolm Gladwell

Check out my blog about the Wizards, movies, writing, music, TV, sports, and whatever else comes to mind.
Nivek





Head Coach
User avatar
Posts: 6,897
And1: 697
Joined: Sep 29, 2010
Top

Post#104 Re: Looking at the numbers . . .
Mon Dec 10, 2012 3:53 pm by pancakes3

I think it's funny how bad OkaRiza have fared on the wizards it really does look like a curse. Okafor hasn't shot sub-50% since 2006. Playing with CP3 did help but CP3 wasn't with him in Charlotte for 3 of those seasons. Ariza was never good. Always flirting with .400 shooting (except for the salad days in LA) but this season he dropped 5 full percentage points down to 35% shooting.

It's almost like players who have had experience on good teams come here and they're dumbfounded at the way ball is being played here. Then when players who were here are liberated they're shocked to see how good competent teams have it.
Bullets -> Wizards
pancakes3
Head Coach
User avatar
Posts: 7,007
And1: 195
Joined: Jul 26, 2003
Location: Virginia
Top

Post#105 Re: Looking at the numbers . . .
Tue Dec 11, 2012 2:12 pm by Nivek

Updated my power rankings. Wizards still rank 30th.
"A lot of what we call talent is the desire to practice."
-- Malcolm Gladwell

Check out my blog about the Wizards, movies, writing, music, TV, sports, and whatever else comes to mind.
Nivek





Head Coach
User avatar
Posts: 6,897
And1: 697
Joined: Sep 29, 2010
Top

Post#106 Re: Looking at the numbers . . .
Tue Dec 11, 2012 2:21 pm by GhostsOfGil

Nivek wrote:[url=http://broomonthewarpath.sportsblog.com/post/63/2012_13_nba_power_rankings.htmlUpdated my power rankings.[/url] Wizards still rank 30th.

I read your post and thought; No way Tyson can sustain that level of shooting efficiency... then found that he shot nearly 70% last year well. :o
GhostsOfGil
General Manager
User avatar
Posts: 8,254
And1: 729
Joined: Jul 5, 2006
Top

Post#107 Re: Looking at the numbers . . .
Tue Dec 11, 2012 2:33 pm by Nivek

Remember when Oklahoma City rejected a trade for Chandler because of his toe?
"A lot of what we call talent is the desire to practice."
-- Malcolm Gladwell

Check out my blog about the Wizards, movies, writing, music, TV, sports, and whatever else comes to mind.
Nivek





Head Coach
User avatar
Posts: 6,897
And1: 697
Joined: Sep 29, 2010
Top

Post#108 Re: Looking at the numbers . . .
Tue Dec 11, 2012 2:41 pm by Nivek

Chandler appears to be a guy who has figured out what he does well in the NBA and has made himself content doing that and nothing else. So far this season, he has attempted exactly 10 shots from outside of 3 feet. Just 3 shots from beyond 15 feet. He shoots when he's around the rim and that's about it. And, he makes those shots. 72.8% or better in each of the past 3 seasons. Better than 63% every year since 2009. He's over 72% on at-rim attempts in 5 of the 7 years in which we have that data available.

A lot of players could be more effective if they'd focus on doing what they're good at doing instead of trying to be The Man. Paradoxically, Chandler is becoming The Man by limiting his game to what he does well.
"A lot of what we call talent is the desire to practice."
-- Malcolm Gladwell

Check out my blog about the Wizards, movies, writing, music, TV, sports, and whatever else comes to mind.
Nivek





Head Coach
User avatar
Posts: 6,897
And1: 697
Joined: Sep 29, 2010
Top

Post#109 Re: Looking at the numbers . . .
Tue Dec 11, 2012 2:41 pm by GhostsOfGil

Nivek wrote:Remember when Oklahoma City rejected a trade for Chandler because of his toe?


Luckily for OKC, Chris Wilcox and Joe Smith turned out to be very valuable assets. :lol:
GhostsOfGil
General Manager
User avatar
Posts: 8,254
And1: 729
Joined: Jul 5, 2006
Top

Post#110 Re: Looking at the numbers . . .
Thu Dec 13, 2012 10:50 am by Nivek

Don't remember which thread it was in, but the question was about whether bigs actually do develop slower than guards. I pinged the guys at APBRmetrics and got a couple responses. Best one was from Crow, who did a "brief, small, rough and simple inquiry."

His findings that at least among players in the 2007-08 rookie class, shorter players were slower to develop (using Win Shares per 48 minutes as the productivity measure).

This is a pretty limited look, and results might not be typical. Still pretty interesting, though.
"A lot of what we call talent is the desire to practice."
-- Malcolm Gladwell

Check out my blog about the Wizards, movies, writing, music, TV, sports, and whatever else comes to mind.
Nivek





Head Coach
User avatar
Posts: 6,897
And1: 697
Joined: Sep 29, 2010
Top

Post#111 Re: Looking at the numbers . . .
Mon Dec 17, 2012 2:24 pm by Nivek

My weekly update at the blog on the Wizards, in which I praise Leonsis and Grunfeld for assembling the best 3-18 team in NBA history.

Also worth noting that three of the eight worst starts in franchise history have occurred in the past three seasons. Those teams -- all constructed by Ernie Grunfeld.

As for the individual numbers -- kinda depressing. Pretty much status quo, except for the guys who got worse.
"A lot of what we call talent is the desire to practice."
-- Malcolm Gladwell

Check out my blog about the Wizards, movies, writing, music, TV, sports, and whatever else comes to mind.
Nivek





Head Coach
User avatar
Posts: 6,897
And1: 697
Joined: Sep 29, 2010
Top

Post#112 Re: Looking at the numbers . . .
Tue Dec 18, 2012 9:30 am by Zonkerbl

The way the lottery is constructed, once you become a 3-18 team it is really difficult to become a good team. The key to success is to be maybe the 5-10 worst team in the league and then luck into the #1 pick. You can't build from worst.

How is Sacramento doing, btw? I remember in the 90s they were similarly the laughingstock of the league. And the injury bug bit them just as they were starting to climb out of the cellar. They seemed to do ok for awhile, when they had Webber and Bibby and Divac. How did that come about?
Comparing Rose to Wall is like asking which is a more impressive cat: A cheetah or a wolf? Dude, Wall ain’t no damn cat!
Zonkerbl




Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 3,469
And1: 181
Joined: Mar 24, 2010
Top

Post#113 Re: Looking at the numbers . . .
Tue Dec 18, 2012 10:18 am by Nivek

One way of looking at NBA lottery odds -- being worst gives that team a 75% chance of NOT getting the top pick.

How did that come about for Sacramento? You're a funny dude. :)
"A lot of what we call talent is the desire to practice."
-- Malcolm Gladwell

Check out my blog about the Wizards, movies, writing, music, TV, sports, and whatever else comes to mind.
Nivek





Head Coach
User avatar
Posts: 6,897
And1: 697
Joined: Sep 29, 2010
Top

Post#114 Re: Looking at the numbers . . .
Tue Dec 18, 2012 10:51 am by Chocolate City Jordanaire

The Kings deserve an asterisk IMO for the 2002 playoffs, when IMO the referees stole a pivotal game from them in the playoffs against the Lakers. I think the Kings had the best team in the NBA that season.

http://scores.espn.go.com/nba/recap?gameId=220531013

The Lakers won thanks to O'Neal's brute brilliance and a steady parade to the free-throw line that infuriated the Kings, who felt the officials had caved in to O'Neal's week-long carping about disrespect and poor calls.

"I feel sorry for our team, because they did everything they could to win the game,'' Sacramento coach Rick Adelman said. "It's a shame, a real shame. ... Our big guys get 20 fouls, and Shaq gets four. You tell me. Obviously, they got the game called the way they wanted to get it called.

"We tried to play through it ... but obviously, it was a huge change tonight over the last few games.''


Los Angeles went nearly six minutes without a field goal down the stretch in the fourth quarter, but made 18 free throws over the final 6:21 to hold off the Kings. Bryant made four free throws in the final 19.8 seconds for the Lakers, who shot a jaw-dropping 27 free throws in the fourth.


I did not end well for the Kings.

(That was the worst-officiated game I had ever seen, but I think the Wizards recent loss to the Lakers might have been equally bad.)
Will the Wizards' success be sustained or was it fool's gold?
Chocolate City Jordanaire
RealGM
User avatar
Posts: 31,770
And1: 525
Joined: Aug 4, 2001
Location: Ft. Washington, MD/Mililani, HI
Top

Post#115 Re: Looking at the numbers . . .
Tue Dec 18, 2012 10:59 am by Nivek

It's funny -- Roland at 82games went back and graded every call in that game. http://www.82games.com/lakerskingsgame6.htm
"A lot of what we call talent is the desire to practice."
-- Malcolm Gladwell

Check out my blog about the Wizards, movies, writing, music, TV, sports, and whatever else comes to mind.
Nivek





Head Coach
User avatar
Posts: 6,897
And1: 697
Joined: Sep 29, 2010
Top

Post#116 Re: Looking at the numbers . . .
Tue Dec 18, 2012 11:09 am by Chocolate City Jordanaire

Thanks for posting that, Nivek! It's funny how two people can watch the same thing and come away with entirely differing perspectives.

The way I saw it the refs utterly stole that game with some terrible calls that all seemed to go the Lakers way. I felt sorry for the Kings and was infuriated that the Lakers were given something I didn't think they earned.
Will the Wizards' success be sustained or was it fool's gold?
Chocolate City Jordanaire
RealGM
User avatar
Posts: 31,770
And1: 525
Joined: Aug 4, 2001
Location: Ft. Washington, MD/Mililani, HI
Top

Post#117 Re: Looking at the numbers . . .
Tue Dec 18, 2012 2:47 pm by Zonkerbl

Nivek wrote:One way of looking at NBA lottery odds -- being worst gives that team a 75% chance of NOT getting the top pick.

How did that come about for Sacramento? You're a funny dude. :)


I mean how did they get Divac and Bibby? They drafted Bibby, right? And they got Webber in a trade. Did they sign Divac as a FA or did they trade for him too?
Comparing Rose to Wall is like asking which is a more impressive cat: A cheetah or a wolf? Dude, Wall ain’t no damn cat!
Zonkerbl




Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 3,469
And1: 181
Joined: Mar 24, 2010
Top

Post#118 Re: Looking at the numbers . . .
Tue Dec 18, 2012 3:14 pm by tontoz

Zonkerbl wrote:
Nivek wrote:One way of looking at NBA lottery odds -- being worst gives that team a 75% chance of NOT getting the top pick.

How did that come about for Sacramento? You're a funny dude. :)


I mean how did they get Divac and Bibby? They drafted Bibby, right? And they got Webber in a trade. Did they sign Divac as a FA or did they trade for him too?



I think they traded Jason Williams to get Bibby.
tontoz
RealGM
User avatar
Posts: 13,043
And1: 444
Joined: Apr 10, 2005
Top

Post#119 Re: Looking at the numbers . . .
Tue Dec 18, 2012 3:24 pm by Nivek

Zonkerbl wrote:
Nivek wrote:One way of looking at NBA lottery odds -- being worst gives that team a 75% chance of NOT getting the top pick.

How did that come about for Sacramento? You're a funny dude. :)


I mean how did they get Divac and Bibby? They drafted Bibby, right? And they got Webber in a trade. Did they sign Divac as a FA or did they trade for him too?


Oh. I thought you were being funny. I withdraw my laughter.

Bibby came via trade. The Kings sent Nick Anderson and Jason Williams to Vancouver for Bibby and Brent Price. IF I recall correctly, Bibby was unhappy in Vancouver and wanted a trade. He'd just completed his third season in the league so his rookie deal was running low on time. Looks like he played his option year in Sacramento, probably with that old 7-year extension already signed.

Divac signed with Sacramento as a free agent. He was an 8-year veteran at that point, who'd been traded by the Lakers to get Kobe.
"A lot of what we call talent is the desire to practice."
-- Malcolm Gladwell

Check out my blog about the Wizards, movies, writing, music, TV, sports, and whatever else comes to mind.
Nivek





Head Coach
User avatar
Posts: 6,897
And1: 697
Joined: Sep 29, 2010
Top

Post#120 Re: Looking at the numbers . . .
Tue Dec 18, 2012 3:43 pm by Zonkerbl

So when Sacto finally turned things around, it was by acquiring Webber in a trade, Bibby in a trade, and Divac as a FA pickup. They also had that kid Christie who was a good defender, I think they drafted him. But they didn't draft their big three. It's just having Webber and Divac, who are both great passers, on the floor at the same time turned out to be a brilliant idea.

Really goes against the grain, doesn't it? Lakers and Celts rivalry was based on Magic and Bird, both playing for the teams that drafted them. Detroit won two with Isaiah Thomas, who they drafted. Houston won two 'ships with Hakeem who they drafted. San Antone has Duncan and Parker and Ginobili, all picked up in the draft. OKC has Durant and Westbrook. So it really shows what a crazy thing they had going in Sacto. Almost as weird as what Detroit did with all our castoffs. And really shows how important it is that your #1 pick turn into an all-world superstar.

Now I'm really, really, really depressed. I'm gonna go lie down and cry now.
Comparing Rose to Wall is like asking which is a more impressive cat: A cheetah or a wolf? Dude, Wall ain’t no damn cat!
Zonkerbl




Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 3,469
And1: 181
Joined: Mar 24, 2010
Top

PreviousNext

Return to Washington Wizards


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: TheKingOfVa360