RealGM

It's been harped on for years that the Golden State Warriors lack the prototypical difference-making big man that could do all the dirty work down low while still posing as a legitimate scoring threat. Wright and Beidrins are stars in the making, but we need the Boozer/Duncan/Stoudemire/Aldridge type of player to balance out the roster and have more options to provide a change-of-pace in the starting lineup or coming off the bench. We don't have the bulk in the middle. We need another rebounder and shot blocker. Basically, we need a big that can help the team right itself when Nellieball is not working.

The following is an exercise to aid in finding out who may be the best all-around Big for the Warriors. I've compared 11 players that have a chance to be available at #14 based on mock drafts I've seen. The players have been evaluated in the following categorize: Scoring, Rebounding, Blocks, Assists, Steals, Turnovers, True Shooting Percentage, Three Pointers Made, and Age. The top player in each category sets the benchmark for a 10 and the others get scores depending on how far they are from the best (5 will be the lowest possible score one can get). I also weighted the results with categories vital to the type of player we need having greater impact on the overall score while lessening the impact of categories not as important to the PF/C role.

I know it's not even close to a perfect predictor for success but here it goes anyway.....

http://mindofmullin.blogspot.com/2008/05/searching-for-best-big-man.html

I like the hard work you put in, but the results don't account for many of the things that could skew everything royally.. such as competition, SOS, quality of team, role, international players?, etc etc.

And to say we need a Boozer/Duncan/Stoudemire/Aldridge type of player is a bit misleading due to the fact that, number one, they are all VERY different players, and number two, they are all top 5 talents (outside of Boozer who should never have dropped that far).

We have our future 4 and 5. We don't need a stud big like the ones mentioned above (i mean, we would take one, but we aren't in the position to get a Beasely type). Wright/Goose is gonna be a legit starting front-court... we just need a tough, starter quality backup big to solidify our front-court.

In that regard, a Love, Spieghts, Hendrix, Pekovic, etc, etc, might be just what we need.

Love is a terrible fit for the Warriors. He needs to go to a team that plays half court sets and walks the ball up. In an up tempo team, he is going to struggle. He isn't athletic and if he doesn't measure at a legit 6'9", he is going to fall in the draft.

Love is a GREAT fit with Golden State...WTF LMH? ...This guy is unbelievable with his outlet passes..I can't wait for the Love-Ellis hookups..

Oh and BTW....F**k our style of play..Bullsh*t sissy ball

TB wrote:I like the hard work you put in, but the results don't account for many of the things that could skew everything royally.. such as competition, SOS, quality of team, role, international players?, etc etc.

Yes! I feel your pain. I mentioned the flaws at the end of the entry and how to make this thing a little more useful after the draft combine. Also, I didn't include international players like Pekovic, Tomic, Ibaka, Ajinca, Jawai, and others because I didn't have their stats. As mentioned in the post, this is far from perfect, but at least it's something.

TB wrote:We have our future 4 and 5. We don't need a stud big like the ones mentioned above (i mean, we would take one, but we aren't in the position to get a Beasely type). Wright/Goose is gonna be a legit starting front-court... we just need a tough, starter quality backup big to solidify our front-court.

Our future 4 and 5 shouldn't deter us from taking best available player if he happens to be the elusive Big. There are so many flaws with a Beidrins / Wright starting combination, especially if Nellieball goes by the wayside. If we draft a Big and he turns out to be a stud, we just have a surplus of frontcourt talent that will allow us to explore trades to upgrade other roster spots.

UCLA was not exactly a walk it up team.

And we need half court ability from our players. It's what wins the big games.

i don't mind Love if he drops to our spot, but that is not going to happen. he's not a bad fit here, he's actually a very good fit with either Beans or Wright, or both at the frontcourt if Wright could develop into a 3. at the very least he gives us options in the future for the 4 or 5 spot.

but again, he's not likely to be around at #14.

pointman wrote:I know it's not even close to a perfect predictor for success but here it goes anyway.....

That perfect predictor will be forever elusive...just ask John Hollinger...

However, this system is perfect for me because I agree with it. Love is a good fit for our team and will be a solid player, though not a superstar.

But seriously, I think Hollinger made some strides last year in constructing a formula to evaluate prospects as you're doing here...and it would be interesting to see what would happen if you tweaked your formula a little based on what Hollinger "found"..

For example, the first thing that jumps out at me is that assists are not a very good measure of any players ability, ast/to is so-so, but pure point rating is a much more accurate indicator of overall ball handling ability. Hollinger found that it was as effective for weeding out bigs as for guards. In a relative evaluation such as this one, it would probably be more useful.

Also, rebounding rate might be more interesting to use than rebounds because it outs those big men who are under-rebounding their position -- a major red flag because if you can't dominate the boards in college, you're not going to be effective in the NBA.

Hollinger claims that blocks and steals could be a measure of athleticism, but I'm not sure how to weight that in your system.

Jordan is a dilemma here because he's so raw.

Overall, the more perspectives on prospects the better...so I'll look forward to the next iteration.

The perfect big may already be on the roster. The jumpshot is one thing that a player can accomplish with hardwork. Biedrens or Wright need to develop it so they can both be on the floor at the same tim

Mylie10 wrote:And we need half court ability from our players. It's what wins the big games.

Bingo

The Celtics main post player Bill Russell wasn't a dominant scorer.

The Warriors had Gus Johnson and Clifford Ray

Detroit bad boys main post player was Adrian Dantley while Bill Laimbeer shot 3's. Rick Mahorn and Rodman set picks and boarded.

Current Pistons have Rasheed from outside and diminished McDyess.

Bulls won six without great post play.

So with teams can win titles without an all around dominant bigman.

Technically, you're right... teams have won without a dominant big.

It's just not likely and if you don't have a dominant big, you need a rare hall of famer or 2 around him.

Like a Isaiah Thomas/Joe Dumars, Rick Barry, Michael Jordan/Scottie Pippen type hall of famer. Even if Kobe wins this year, he will have won with Pau Gasol...

The current Pistons have not won a title. But don't disregard the importance of Jason Maxiell, Amir Johnson, and Theo Ratliff, for fouls if nothing else. The Pistons with Ben Wallace to defend and rebound did win a championship.

The Bulls didn't have great post play, but they rotated three average centers next to a Horace Grant or Dennis Rodman.

In the end, the argument that you can win without solid post play doesn't work out.

I do like the thought behind the rating system, but in addition to what has been previously mentioned the system doesn't account for style of play of the team, faster paced teams lead to more stats. Also, not all categories should carry equal weight. Three pointers are not as important from a PF/C as are rebounds, blocked shots and field goal percentage. Nice try though and it is definitely food for though, after all my boy Speights is at #3.

if Boozer wants out of Utah, id offer Biedrins and Bellinelli and 08 1st rounder.

Rainbow Jumper wrote:I do like the thought behind the rating system, but in addition to what has been previously mentioned the system doesn't account for style of play of the team, faster paced teams lead to more stats.

Actually, the stats are 40 min Pace Adjusted, so style of play is taken into account.

GSWhoopfan wrote:if Boozer wants out of Utah, id offer Biedrins and Bellinelli and 08 1st rounder.

F that trade. I'd rather have an eternally sub-par team than to compete with Boozer as a centerpiece.

TB wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



F that trade. I'd rather have an eternally sub-par team than to compete with Boozer as a centerpiece.

The Bulls had Rodman, who was one of the most tenacious and effective defenders and rebounders ever, hardly a bad post player. The Pistons of 04 had Big Ben (4x DPOY) and Sheed, great post defense. I agree that you don't need a post scorer, but you definitely need a post presence.

Sid the Squid wrote:Love is a GREAT fit with Golden State...WTF LMH? ...This guy is unbelievable with his outlet passes..I can't wait for the Love-Ellis hookups..

Oh and BTW....F**k our style of play..Bullsh*t sissy ball

The Squid is right on this. Naturally Love can't haul his max of 265 or whatever and be as useful,but we GOT rabbits and we NEED a Bulldog. I'm not saying Nellie USES him effectively....but Love is a fit. Odds he lasts to 14 are maybe 3-1.

Thompson's dad had him run cross country in HS. Good plan. He not only is a good transition big early...but there's no fade.

I just saw DX's thing on Alexander. When I saw him play-I saw a pretty savvy player,nice shooters touch,clutch.
Now...he has big hops too? I also know Huggins teaches work ethic,toughness,D. That Alexander rose fast from mere ??? nobody to a probable top 15 is making me interested. How to get Alexander AND Thompson?

More on that later.

GSWhoopfan wrote:if Boozer wants out of Utah, id offer Biedrins and Bellinelli and 08 1st rounder.

Uh....so we beg POB to come back?