Nick Young

[Hoopalotta]

I understand the weight of an argument like: "Historically, a player with a statistical performance at 'Y' level has never shown improvement beyond 'X' level".

Well I hope that's a fair paraphrase, but anyway I loved the articles, though I haven't read Nicks in maybe two months though.

However, it seems to me there are a few points to consider:

1) Does Nick have any actual solid NBA skills?

Yes. He hit .438% of his 2 point jumpers, and doing most of that off the dribble with only 21% of those shots assisted. That was 31st on the 82 games database and one slot behind Kobe.

He also hit 34% of his three's, which isn't great, but he did better in his first year and we can at least say his stroke looks good enough that improvement percentage wise would not be shocking.

So that's something.

Also, he held his match-up at the '2' spot to a PER of 15.8 with about 21 points in 48 minutes. Something there, so the foundation for some level of defense shows up in the statistics

Any other things that he does would seem to be at a below average level.

2) How could improvement be framed?

Basically, the main thing is his ability to score within the offense and play better D. While we'd love to see modest improvements in rebounding or what have you, it is likely that these elements will always lag behind and are not really the prime criteria by which he could become a useful player. In other words, the improvement of his strengths will define his career.

So, I know it's only summer league, but he did manage to change the frame work of how he scored the ball under the new coaches. Somebody mentioned somewhere how many of his shots were assisted, I can't remember, but it was considerably more than before. He has to realize that if he wants minutes, this is what he must do. There's going to be a lot of guys getting attention from the opposing defense, so he should have good looks. Yes, Summer league, but before he actually did it, I never would have thought that such a miracle could have been enacted.

So it just seems like if Young can take some indirect lessons from Reggie Miller or Rip Hamilton with off the ball movement while improving his D', he can become some kind of a useful player.

And we'll just throw out 'it's only summer league' again to be safe. We talkin' 'bout summer league? Not a game, not a game, not a game. We talkin' bout summer league.

3) Is that realistic?

I don't know, but it sounds like less of a longshot than the statistical measure. It seems as if he has one high end skill (sweet shooting) that has been thus far trapped in a bad habit (isolation dribble), and if it can be removed from that husk, he's immediately got a degree of utility, even at the low end of potential.

It's hard to imagine a scenario where Nick Young improves his defensive utility to a fair degree and habitually comes off screens without becoming at least an 'efficient-if-streaky-24 minutes-of-firepower' type player.

[ZonkertheBrainless]

I think the N1 who plays under Ej's system, where the weave gets him in isolation on the elbow and he freelances from there one on one, is at best Trent Tucker. If he learns how to come off screens and become a more efficient scorer like Rip Hamilton or Miller then he has room to improve. Also N1 may be developing into a good defender. IIRC PER doesn't have much defense in it (no stat based system does).

[TheSecretWeapon]

I'm definitely not saying Nick can't/won't improve. Nearly everyone in the NBA has serious talent and serious ability. How good they become is often a matter of how much they're willing to work.

With Nick, we talk a lot about his his scoring ability. And it's there -- at least in spurts. That's okay for now, but for him to be useful, he needs to do it more regularly and more efficiently.

Nick's offensive rating (points produced per 100 possessions) was 104.8 this year. That ranked 88th among guards who played at least 500 minutes. We talk a lot about his shooting -- his efg was .481 this season, which was 80th among guards (at least 500 minutes). If I screen for usage, Nick's efg ranks 23rd out of 33 guards with a usage rate of 23% or higher. His ortg was 24th out of 33.

So, even his strength isn't really all that strong -- at least not yet. Then start looking at the weaknesses (basically everything else) and wow -- there's a lot the guy needs to improve.

For example -- among the high usage guards, he's 31st out of 33 in rebounding. He had a slightly lower rebounding percentage than Iverson. He had a lower rebounding percentage than Louis Williams, Tony Parker, Ben Gordon, Will Bynum, Mo Williams and Jameer Nelson. Look at all guards, and Nick was 122nd in rebounding -- right between Juan Dixon and Mike James.

His assist percentage is dead last among these higher usage guards (121st among all guards with at least 500 minutes). He's next to last in steals among higher usage guys, 133 among all guards.

Two relative strengths -- blocks (29th among all guards; 7th among high-usage) and turnovers (24th best among all guards; 8th best among high-usage).

His 3pt shooting has been pretty good -- 18th among high usage guards last season; 84th among all guards.

I'm certainly hoping Nick is somehow able to figure out how to do something other than shoot the ball and block a shot once in awhile. It's just a lot to expect of a guy who's played this way probably his entire life. The scouting report on him coming from college was that he could score, but that he didn't do much else. That hasn't changed even a little as a pro. For him to be a useful player, he's either going to have add other dimension to his game or become a freaky-effective and efficient scorer. Right now, he's one dimensional, and the one dimension isn't all that great (at least not yet).

[miller31time]

TSW, what do you think of Nick's defense?

It's popular around these parts to think that Young is a slightly above-average defender (last year) due to his team-leading defensive on/off differential, but is this misleading?

The kid has great length so it makes sense that if he can keep moving his feet and attempt to stay in front of his man, his defense would be better than most.

Any truth to that?

[TheSecretWeapon]

I'm not in agreement with that assessment of his defense. I'd agree that he's not awful defensively, but I think the on/off number may just be a fluke or luck. I think this for a few reasons. First, his minutes weren't all that high -- 22.4 mpg, almost all of them coming off the bench. On/off numbers become more reliable with more minutes, and I'm not sure Nick played enough to consider them reliable. Especially if you combine them with his rookie numbers, which were weak.

Second, context is important when looking at on/off numbers. Nick may be a better defender than the other schlubs the Wiz ran at his spot, but that's not the same as saying Nick is "slightly above average."

Third, level of competition is worth a look. Over at APBRmetrics, one of the guys created a way of calculating how much a guy plays against starters. A guy like Nick, who plays limited minutes exclusively off the bench, plays his minutes with fewer starters on the floor. The formula says Nick's "faced starters" percentage was 51% last season. Contrast that, for example, with Haywood from 04-05.

This is the season where Haywood had a defensive on/off that was around 10.0 most of the season. I hand tracked much of that season and know exactly why the on/off was that big. Haywood started all 68 games he appeared in, averaging 27.4 mpg. His "faced starters" percentage was 81%. In other words, Nick faced as many subs as he did starters when he was in the game; Haywood faced mostly starters.

Looked at this way, we'd expect opposing offenses to be less efficient, and for opposing players to be less productive. This could explain at least some of Nick's on/off number, and the counterpart numbers (the counterpart stats are dubious anyway, but that's another post).

Finally, there's the eyeball test. Nick does block shots now and then and he does a pretty good job closing out on the perimeter (when he remembers to stay close enough to his man, or to rotate). He doesn't do a good job on penetration; he doesn't follow the team's force rules; he often loses focus and drifts; he generally doesn't gear up to play defense at all until he's been scored on a few times.

I don't think there's anything limiting Nick from being a good defender other than the mental side of things. But I do not agree with the thought that he's even an average defender.

[nate33]

I'm not in agreement with that assessment of his defense. I'd agree that he's not awful defensively, but I think the on/off number may just be a fluke or luck. I think this for a few reasons. First, his minutes weren't all that high -- 22.4 mpg, almost all of them coming off the bench. On/off numbers become more reliable with more minutes, and I'm not sure Nick played enough to consider them reliable. Especially if you combine them with his rookie numbers, which were weak.

Second, context is important when looking at on/off numbers. Nick may be a better defender than the other schlubs the Wiz ran at his spot, but that's not the same as saying Nick is "slightly above average."

Third, level of competition is worth a look. Over at APBRmetrics, one of the guys created a way of calculating how much a guy plays against starters. A guy like Nick, who plays limited minutes exclusively off the bench, plays his minutes with fewer starters on the floor. The formula says Nick's "faced starters" percentage was 51% last season. Contrast that, for example, with Haywood from 04-05.

This is the season where Haywood had a defensive on/off that was around 10.0 most of the season. I hand tracked much of that season and know exactly why the on/off was that big. Haywood started all 68 games he appeared in, averaging 27.4 mpg. His "faced starters" percentage was 81%. In other words, Nick faced as many subs as he did starters when he was in the game; Haywood faced mostly starters.

Looked at this way, we'd expect opposing offenses to be less efficient, and for opposing players to be less productive. This could explain at least some of Nick's on/off number, and the counterpart numbers (the counterpart stats are dubious anyway, but that's another post).

Finally, there's the eyeball test. Nick does block shots now and then and he does a pretty good job closing out on the perimeter (when he remembers to stay close enough to his man, or to rotate). He doesn't do a good job on penetration; he doesn't follow the team's force rules; he often loses focus and drifts; he generally doesn't gear up to play defense at all until he's been scored on a few times.

I don't think there's anything limiting Nick from being a good defender other than the mental side of things. But I do not agree with the thought that he's even an average defender.

Did you run your defensive box scores for any Wizards games last season? If so, how did Nick do?

[TheSecretWeapon]

I did a handful of games last season -- maybe 4 or 5 total. Not close to enough to reach any conclusions.

[Kanyewest]

I'm definitely not saying Nick can't/won't improve. Nearly everyone in the NBA has serious talent and serious ability. How good they become is often a matter of how much they're willing to work.

With Nick, we talk a lot about his his scoring ability. And it's there -- at least in spurts. That's okay for now, but for him to be useful, he needs to do it more regularly and more efficiently.

That sounds like Jamal Crawford

[WizarDynasty]

Looks like the legendary wizkev is back with unmatched analysis and combining numbers into new basketball performance ideas related to the wiz. Not going to find that anywhere on the net. Like a the leading locomotive carrying all those box cars. U sit at the light waiting for the cars to stop coming but the new ideas just keep coming and coming keeping the wiz board alive when normally the ideas are on par with a cementary. Can't put a cost on ability to create new ideas. Good training for the newbies to emulate for the future.

[TheSecretWeapon]

Call it an encouraging sign maybe, but Young's first 2 seasons were a lot better than Crawford's first 2 in the league. Crawford did enter the league younger, and got hurt his 2nd year, though.

As I look at Crawford's career, there are some similarities (rebounding and shot blocking). Crawford gets a ton more assists than Nick, but also a few more turnovers. Crawford seemed to start figuring out how to play on the offensive end in his 5th season (when he got to New York). Nick might be getting there sooner.

Nick already shoots it better -- his .481 efg (same percentage in both seasons of his career) is better than what Crawford posted in 7 of his 9 NBA seasons. Nick's 3pt shooting in his first 2 seasons is better than Crawford's in 8-of-9 seasons.

[miller31time]

I'm not in agreement with that assessment of his defense. I'd agree that he's not awful defensively, but I think the on/off number may just be a fluke or luck. I think this for a few reasons. First, his minutes weren't all that high -- 22.4 mpg, almost all of them coming off the bench. On/off numbers become more reliable with more minutes, and I'm not sure Nick played enough to consider them reliable. Especially if you combine them with his rookie numbers, which were weak.

Second, context is important when looking at on/off numbers. Nick may be a better defender than the other schlubs the Wiz ran at his spot, but that's not the same as saying Nick is "slightly above average."

Third, level of competition is worth a look. Over at APBRmetrics, one of the guys created a way of calculating how much a guy plays against starters. A guy like Nick, who plays limited minutes exclusively off the bench, plays his minutes with fewer starters on the floor. The formula says Nick's "faced starters" percentage was 51% last season. Contrast that, for example, with Haywood from 04-05.

This is the season where Haywood had a defensive on/off that was around 10.0 most of the season. I hand tracked much of that season and know exactly why the on/off was that big. Haywood started all 68 games he appeared in, averaging 27.4 mpg. His "faced starters" percentage was 81%. In other words, Nick faced as many subs as he did starters when he was in the game; Haywood faced mostly starters.

Looked at this way, we'd expect opposing offenses to be less efficient, and for opposing players to be less productive. This could explain at least some of Nick's on/off number, and the counterpart numbers (the counterpart stats are dubious anyway, but that's another post).

Finally, there's the eyeball test. Nick does block shots now and then and he does a pretty good job closing out on the perimeter (when he remembers to stay close enough to his man, or to rotate). He doesn't do a good job on penetration; he doesn't follow the team's force rules; he often loses focus and drifts; he generally doesn't gear up to play defense at all until he's been scored on a few times.

I don't think there's anything limiting Nick from being a good defender other than the mental side of things. But I do not agree with the thought that he's even an average defender.

Interesting. Thanks for the analysis.

[daSwami]

Looks like the legendary wizkev is back with unmatched analysis and combining numbers into new basketball performance ideas related to the wiz. Not going to find that anywhere on the net. Like a the leading locomotive carrying all those box cars. U sit at the light waiting for the cars to stop coming but the new ideas just keep coming and coming keeping the wiz board alive when normally the ideas are on par with a cementary. Can't put a cost on ability to create new ideas. Good training for the newbies to emulate for the future.

I think someone just got pwned by hisself.

[WizarDynasty]

Looks like the legendary wizkev is back with unmatched analysis and combining numbers into new basketball performance ideas related to the wiz. Not going to find that anywhere on the net. Like a the leading locomotive carrying all those box cars. U sit at the light waiting for the cars to stop coming but the new ideas just keep coming and coming keeping the wiz board alive when normally the ideas are on par with a cementary. Can't put a cost on ability to create new ideas. Good training for the newbies to emulate for the future.

I think someone just got pwned by hisself.

LOL. Kev is a heavy weight. Powerful locomotive when it comes to wizards. There are other heavy weights but he consistently performs at a championship level. Alot of us have our moments but he is one of the few that brings it with every post. Very hard to do so you gotta give a man credit.

[nate33]

I'm not in agreement with that assessment of his defense. I'd agree that he's not awful defensively, but I think the on/off number may just be a fluke or luck. I think this for a few reasons. First, his minutes weren't all that high -- 22.4 mpg, almost all of them coming off the bench. On/off numbers become more reliable with more minutes, and I'm not sure Nick played enough to consider them reliable. Especially if you combine them with his rookie numbers, which were weak.

Question:
Aren't on/off numbers even more reliable when there's an equal amount of "off" minutes as "on" minutes? Then you get the maximum possible sample size for his on time and off time, reducing the potential for flukey data with the off minutes.

For example, Jamison was second in the league in on/off data a year ago, but it may have simply been that a huge proportion of his "off" time was actually garbage time when the team had already thrown in the towel. Surely, Jamison wasn't one of the very best players in the league in 2007/08

[verbal8]

For example, Jamison was second in the league in on/off data a year ago, but it may have simply been that a huge proportion of his "off" time was actually garbage time when the team had already thrown in the towel. Surely, Jamison wasn't one of the very best players in the league in 2007/08

I think the explanation is not that Jamison was that great, but that the alternative line-ups were so bad. It also helped that Jamison was usually in a line-up with Haywood. The line-ups with Haywood at C were a lot better than the alternatives.

These were the top three line ups in terms of minutes without Jamison:

lineup minutes +/-
Mason-McGuire-Young-Blatche-Songaila 98 -21
Mason-McGuire-Young-Blatche-Pecherov 73 -24
Mason-Young-Butler-Blatche-Songaila 67 -19

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

Wasn't Jamison's on/off below that Blatche's in the 2008-2009 year in which the Wizards won 19 games? Same with Butler's.

In fact, Nick Young, Darius Songaila, and Andray Blatche each had better on/off stats than Antawn and Caron, FWIW. (See under the red column on the link below)

http://www.82games.com/0809/0809WAS.HTM

[verbal8]

Wasn't Jamison's on/off below that Blatche's in the 2008-2009 year in which the Wizards won 19 games? Same with Butler's.

In fact, Nick Young, Darius Songaila, and Andray Blatche each had better on/off stats than Antawn and Caron, FWIW. (See under the red column on the link below)

http://www.82games.com/0809/0809WAS.HTM

Jamison was so bad in on/off because he was playing so much for such a bad team. Basically if it wasn't garbage time, he was out on the floor.

The only line-up in the top 20 w/o Jamison: Crittenton-Young-McGuire-McGee-Pecherov(that is a garbage time line-up if I ever saw one).

[nate33]

For example, Jamison was second in the league in on/off data a year ago, but it may have simply been that a huge proportion of his "off" time was actually garbage time when the team had already thrown in the towel. Surely, Jamison wasn't one of the very best players in the league in 2007/08

I think the explanation is not that Jamison was that great, but that the alternative line-ups were so bad.

That's my point. I'm saying that the on/off data for a very high minute player isn't accurate because there's a higher likelihood that his "off" time is flukey due to so much garbage time.

Last year, Nick Young had a roughly 50/50 split between on time and off time. Wouldn't that make his actual on/off score more representative of reality?

[LyricalRico]

For example, Jamison was second in the league in on/off data a year ago, but it may have simply been that a huge proportion of his "off" time was actually garbage time when the team had already thrown in the towel. Surely, Jamison wasn't one of the very best players in the league in 2007/08

I think the explanation is not that Jamison was that great, but that the alternative line-ups were so bad.

That's my point. I'm saying that the on/off data for a very high minute player isn't accurate because there's a higher likelihood that his "off" time is flukey due to so much garbage time.

Last year, Nick Young had a roughly 50/50 split between on time and off time. Wouldn't that make his actual on/off score more representative of reality?

Interesting theory, nate. I think you might have something, but I also see the logic in Kev's point about quality of players on the floor during the "on" time. I think the key might be finding a way to weight the formula to account for both minutes and level of competition. Is that even possible?

[nate33]

That's my point. I'm saying that the on/off data for a very high minute player isn't accurate because there's a higher likelihood that his "off" time is flukey due to so much garbage time.

Last year, Nick Young had a roughly 50/50 split between on time and off time. Wouldn't that make his actual on/off score more representative of reality?

Interesting theory, nate. I think you might have something, but I also see the logic in Kev's point about quality of players on the floor during the "on" time. I think the key might be finding a way to weight the formula to account for both minutes and level of competition. Is that even possible?

I wholeheartedly agree that Young's performance deserves an asterisk because he was often matched up against backups. Certainly, I don't consider Young to be the best defender on the team simply because he had the best defensive on/off differential.

But the tone of Wizkev's article seems to be that Nick Young is a bad defender. That's where I don't follow.

First, I don't quite agree that Young's on/off stats should be ignored because of low minutes. I think a sound argument can be made that Young's on/off stats are actually more accurate than a high minute player because there's less "fluke potential" in the off data. (I'm Ignoring the level of competition argument which I will address below. When I say "more accurate", I'm strictly speaking of playing time.)

Second, the existing on/off data suggests he's extremely good on defense. While I get that his "extremely good" ranking deserves to be downgraded a bit due to the competition he faced, I just don't see why it should be downgraded all the way to "below average" rather than to merely "pretty good". By that argument, any player who doesn't play starter's minutes is a poor defender, regardless of the on/off data.