Official Trade Thread - Part XXVII

[hands11]

Note that it's easy to understand where the myth comes from that equates scoring a lot of points per game with being a great player. It comes from the fact that basketball is two things: it's competition, and it's entertainment.

It's entertaining to watch a guy score a lot of points; it's fun. Really, it's almost as much fun no matter the efficiency w/ which the points pile up. If a guy gets 40 points, people will think he had a great game -- whether he got them on 18 shots or 27 shots.

Yet from the point of view of competition, we don't hold a playoffs among the 16 teams that scored the most points on the season! From that point of view, it's not how many, it's how many more than your opponents. And efficiency is the key differentiator in the latter -- scoring efficiency, rebounding efficiency (esp. offensive rebounding), etc. -- but mostly those two.

So... Melo is entertaining -- and for that reason he is rich. Richer than Love. But any team that chose Love instead of Melo would post a higher win/loss record than the team that did the opposite.

So its all about efficiency ?

Player A 2 for 4 and 1 for 1 from the line
Player B 8 for 18 and 5 for 8 from the line

I agree efficiency is important, but I sure you would agree that some volume to that efficiency is also important.

As for this..." it's how many more than your opponents." Couldn't agree more.

Teams can be designed differently. Some designed to crank up the pts on you and see if you can keep up. Some to shut you down while not scoring a ton themselves, but more then you. And they frustrate you in doing it. They take you out of your offense.

I side toward a team build on defense as the first focus. That said, you need a player or very sound system that can generate pts come crunch time. That's why a player like Melo can be important to a team. Because he can get his shot off with almost zero space. If he is hot, he is almost impossible to stop. But in Melo's case, there is a downside. He isn't mentally balanced enough to know when to stop chucking. He only has one gear and that is shoot. Well that can frustrate the other teammates who are grinding it out playing defense that are interested in getting some points as well.

Gortat made some post game comments after last game that were something like this..." I'm only the big man. I set picks and try to stop their big man. Don't as me what happened.."

Gortat was 3-7
Wall was 4-16

Something tell me Gortat was not very happy about that and felt he could score more.

[payitforward]

Note that it's easy to understand where the myth comes from that equates scoring a lot of points per game with being a great player. It comes from the fact that basketball is two things: it's competition, and it's entertainment.

It's entertaining to watch a guy score a lot of points; it's fun. Really, it's almost as much fun no matter the efficiency w/ which the points pile up. If a guy gets 40 points, people will think he had a great game -- whether he got them on 18 shots or 27 shots.

Yet from the point of view of competition, we don't hold a playoffs among the 16 teams that scored the most points on the season! From that point of view, it's not how many, it's how many more than your opponents. And efficiency is the key differentiator in the latter -- scoring efficiency, rebounding efficiency (esp. offensive rebounding), etc. -- but mostly those two.

So... Melo is entertaining -- and for that reason he is rich. Richer than Love. But any team that chose Love instead of Melo would post a higher win/loss record than the team that did the opposite.

So its all about efficiency ?

Player A 2 for 4 and 1 for 1 from the line
Player B 8 for 18 and 5 for 8 from the line

That's a non-point, Hands. It's about efficiency in scoring and ball-control (rebounding - esp. offensive - and not turning it over) for the 240 player minutes that make up a game.

Moreover, you illustrate my point about over-valuing scoring in this made-up example. Did Player A get 14 boards and not turn it over? Did Player B commit 5 turnovers and fail to rebound - esp. on the offensive end?

Teams can be designed differently. Some designed to crank up the pts on you and see if you can keep up. Some to shut you down while not scoring a ton themselves, but more then you. And they frustrate you in doing it. They take you out of your offense.

No, no, no.... Basketball is not chess. The two opponents in a game don't start w/ the same pieces and pit their strategies against each other!

In basketball, you start with the players you have -- and you put in a place a way of playing that you hope will maximize what your players are good at and minimize what they're bad at. Then you keep adjusting it as you go along; i.e. you get better at it.

Yes, coaches call this a "system," but really that word is a little misleading in that it implies more control than you can usually have. Or maybe it would be better to say that in the real world, because the opposing team is trying to get you out of your "system," what happens on the floor can't always look like your design.

And that's why it's paramount to get the best players -- to be able to judge and acquire talent. More than any other sport, basketball is a players' game. There are only 5 guys on the floor for your team, it's free-flowing, and if your players are better you win more often. Compare this to baseball; no matter how great a hitter is, he only comes to the plate 4-5 times. Only the pitcher (and in football the quarterback) has the kind of influence on results that any player can have (positive or negative) in a basketball game.

...a player like Melo can be important to a team. Because he can get his shot off with almost zero space.

Yup, that's the classic mistake about Melo. The "he can get his own shot" mistake. And it brings us back around to the question of efficiency. Melo can get his own shot, yes, but way too often it's a low percentage shot. For that reason, his shooting/scoring isn't efficient enough that when you take into account his being average or below at so many other things, especially rebounding and turnovers, you can say he's one of the league's top players. He isn't.

No one doubts that Melo is a very good NBA player. And he is having I think his best year ever. I'd rank him @ #5 among SFs. But he's paid like he's among the top 5 players in the league -- across all positions! And if you look at his results across the whole career, he's usually among the top 10 SFs, no better than that.

IOW, Melo is a guy who is paid like Kevin Durant and LeBron James but doesn't produce results anywhere near their class.

Why is he overpaid? Because of that "myth... that equates scoring a lot of points per game with being a great player."

[rockymac52]

Melo's offensive rating is higher than every Wizard except Ariza, Webster, Gooden, and Miller. But Melo's usage rate is 3rd in the league at over 32%. That's what's so valuable about his offensive game. He scores at a very efficient rate, despite taking way more shots than your average superstar. That in turn allows the rest of the players on the court with Melo to be more selective with their shot attempts, and as a result, their efficiency typically increases.

[Nivek]

Melo's offensive rating is higher than every Wizard except Ariza, Webster, Gooden, and Miller. But Melo's usage rate is 3rd in the league at over 32%. That's what's so valuable about his offensive game. He scores at a very efficient rate, despite taking way more shots than your average superstar. That in turn allows the rest of the players on the court with Melo to be more selective with their shot attempts, and as a result, their efficiency typically increases.

That's this season, and as payitforward noted -- this is the best season of Anthony's career (followed closely by last season). Over the course of his career, Anthony has been significantly overrated because of the volume of his scoring when that volume came at pretty average efficiency. Unlike, say, Lebron -- who put up similar volume, but at WAY above average efficiency. Or Durant. Or other truly elite scorers.

I don't think anyone is saying Anthony is (or was) a bad player. I've long thought he was good -- the past couple years, he's been very good. But he's been feted as an elite player, which he was not (and still isn't). And more importantly, he's been PAID like an elite player, which he was not (and still isn't).

Based on pure playing ability, I'd LOVE to have Carmelo Anthony on my team. I think I could build a really good team around his scoring ability, though I wouldn't mind tweaking his game just a bit. But, I wouldn't want him at his salary -- even though he's finally within $6-7 million of being worth what he's getting.

[rockymac52]

Melo's offensive rating is higher than every Wizard except Ariza, Webster, Gooden, and Miller. But Melo's usage rate is 3rd in the league at over 32%. That's what's so valuable about his offensive game. He scores at a very efficient rate, despite taking way more shots than your average superstar. That in turn allows the rest of the players on the court with Melo to be more selective with their shot attempts, and as a result, their efficiency typically increases.

That's this season, and as payitforward noted -- this is the best season of Anthony's career (followed closely by last season). Over the course of his career, Anthony has been significantly overrated because of the volume of his scoring when that volume came at pretty average efficiency. Unlike, say, Lebron -- who put up similar volume, but at WAY above average efficiency. Or Durant. Or other truly elite scorers.

I don't think anyone is saying Anthony is (or was) a bad player. I've long thought he was good -- the past couple years, he's been very good. But he's been feted as an elite player, which he was not (and still isn't). And more importantly, he's been PAID like an elite player, which he was not (and still isn't).

Based on pure playing ability, I'd LOVE to have Carmelo Anthony on my team. I think I could build a really good team around his scoring ability, though I wouldn't mind tweaking his game just a bit. But, I wouldn't want him at his salary -- even though he's finally within $6-7 million of being worth what he's getting.

I understand what you're saying. He's not in the same class as LeBron and Durant offensively (let alone defensively). But he's still an elite offensive player. Elite.

First off, you're right, the last two years have been Carmelo's best statistically. It appears he's hitting his peak at age 29, and there are no signs of him slowing down (other than simply his age). But for now let's forget about the last two seasons, and look at his career averages. His career usage rate is about 32%, and his career offensive rating is 108. Here are some other stats from players leading the league in usage rate and efficiency this season:

LeBron: 31% usage rate, 121 offensive rating
Durant: 33%, 124
Griffin: 29%, 114
Love: 29%, 121
Curry: 28%, 116
DeRozan: 28%, 110
Harden: 28%, 119
Wade: 27%, 110
Jamal Crawford: 27%, 110
Dirk: 27%, 119
Parker: 27%, 110
Isaiah Thomas: 26%, 115
Lillard: 25%, 116
Anthony Davis: 25%, 119

Other usage rate leaders with lower offensive rating than Melo:
Westbrook: 34%, 107
Cousins: 32%, 108
Aldridge: 30%, 108
Al Jefferson: 29%, 105
Kyrie: 28%, 109
Paul George: 28%, 107
Gay: 28%, 103
Wall: 28%, 106
Evans: 27%, 103
Pau: 26%, 103
Nick Young: 26%, 105
Boozer: 26%, 95
Randolph: 26%, 105
Ellis: 26%, 104
Teague: 26%, 104
Millsap: 26%, 105
Kemba: 26%, 103
Duncan: 25%, 107

So who is actually better on offense than Melo these days? LeBron, Durant, Love, Harden, Dirk, Davis? He's elite offensively. No doubt. Even with his career averages of 32% and 108, he's still pretty good, similar to Westbrook and Kyrie.

[Nivek]

No question that Anthony has gotten better since he arrived in New York. This season, I see 41 players who have played at least 500 minutes with a usage rate over 25. Anthony ranks 12th in offensive rating (points produced per 100 possessions). I won't quibble if you want to call that "elite."

Since he entered the league in 2003-04, 45 players have played at least 2000 minutes with a usage rate over 25. Anthony ranks 26th in that group. League average during that time has been about 106.3.

[barelyawake]

Kev, here is my problem with the argument that you are making:

A) Do some players make other players better via their style of play and approach to the game?
B) Can players lead by example and effect (both negatively and positively) the work ethic, communication and/or competitiveness of a team?
C) Have strong leaders ever caused what should be a poor team to over-perform by instilling a culture and attitude (both on court and off) that translates into more determined play?

The answer to me is obviously yes for all. And so, leadership and attitude are important to helping players and teams reach their potential. And that tone should be set by Love. It never has been. And that is why so many question his ability to head a championship team and to guide them to maximize their potential. And that is why stats showing what his teammates have done (past tense) can't factor in what they could do operating under a better mentor/leader who inspires, or at least spearheads, a winning culture.

[Nivek]

Kev, here is my problem with the argument that you are making:

A) Do some players make other players better via their style of play and approach to the game?

Yes.

B) Can players lead by example and effect (both negatively and positively) the work ethic, communication and/or competitiveness of a team?

Yes.

C) Have strong leaders ever caused what should be a poor team to over-perform by instilling a culture and attitude (both on court and off) that translates into more determined play?

Depends on what you mean by "over-perform." Michael Jordan or Magic Johnson might have gotten that 17-win Twolves team to "over-perform" to the tune of 20 wins.

And speaking of Jordan and leadership, why did the Wizards miss the playoffs twice with a proven winner and strong leader like Jordan on the team? Why didn't the Wizards players get made better by the presence of Jordan? Did he just do a bad job of leading in Washington? Was he never that good a leader in the first place (which is, by the way, what Johnny Bach told me -- he said the real leader of those Bulls teams was Pippen, not Jordan)? Or, was it perhaps that he wasn't as good a player anymore and he couldn't lead his team to victory by pouring in points, grabbing rebounds, dominating on defense, etc.?

And so, leadership and attitude are important to helping players and teams reach their potential. And that tone should be set by Love. It never has been.

And we know this how, exactly? So far, the evidence presented has been -- well, there's talk about him being an inadequate leader, and jeez, just look at the team's record. Which is a) a tautology, and b) is crappy evidence anyway. And, oh yeah, Player X would NEVER "let" his team perform so bad.

And that is why so many question his ability to head a championship team and to guide them to maximize their potential. And that is why stats showing what his teammates have done (past tense) can't factor in what they could do operating under a better mentor/leader who inspires, or at least spearheads, a winning culture.

Which of Love's teammates departed Minnesota and become significantly more productive? (Real question -- I don't know the answer.)

[Zonkerbl]

*mic drop*

[barelyawake]

A) Jordan was the "fifth best player in the league" on the Wizards? We are talking about a player who will command fifth best player in the league salary. Whom literally hundreds of articles have been written about his lack of leadership, including many by local sportswriters who cover his team.

B) Evidence? He takes plays off. He makes plays obviously geared toward increasing his stats over wins -- as has been widely observed and reported. You don't believe that affects the team culture? His lockerroom attitude (meaning not taking command of the lockerroom) has been written about. The fact that local reporters and fans echo that he isn't leader and doesn't help cementing a winning culture off the court.

C) A prime Magic or Jordan would have done a hell of a lot better than you are proposing. I love that you agree leadership is important and then totally dismiss its affect on the win column. Especially on a team where they lose in crunch time (when extra effort is most important) and where the leadership of their star has been questioned repeatedly.

As far as who has done better on other teams, that I would have to research. And I will.

Edit to add. As I said, I'm not totally against getting Love. My point was, it then becomes tricky because you have to give Love his max salary and then find one of the few vet leaders/defenders, and get him as well. Where you have more options when one of your maxed out players isn't so deficient in facets essential to championship teams.

[Nivek]

A) Jordan was the "fifth best player in the league" on the Wizards? We are talking about a player who will command fifth best player in the league salary. Whom literally hundreds of articles have been written about his lack of leadership, including many by local sportswriters who cover his team.

"Literally hundreds"? I'm having trouble finding one.

B) Evidence? He takes plays off. He makes plays obviously geared toward increasing his stats over wins -- as has been widely observed and reported. You don't believe that affects the team culture? His lockerroom attitude (meaning not taking command of the lockerroom). The fact that local reporters and fans echo that he isn't leader and doesn't help cementing a winning culture off the court.

I hear people TALK about Love taking plays off and padding his stats, but I don't see it when I watch him play -- not in any way that's different from other star players. That local reporters and fans repeat the same thing doesn't mean much to me. Fans (and reporters) say and believe all kinds of things that aren't true. Shoot, they keep believing stuff that's false even when it's been shown to be false.

C) A prime Magic or Jordan would have done a hell of a lot better than you are proposing. I love that you agree leadership is important and then totally dismiss it's affect on the win column. Especially on a team where they lose in crunch time (when extra effort is most important) and where the leadership of their star has been questioned repeatedly.

No, I don't "dismiss" the effect of leadership on winning and losing. I say it's something that we as fans (as outsiders) are not in position to assess. In this case, I suspect that if Love had more productive teammates, he'd be perceived as a better leader.

[barelyawake]

Yes, hundreds... Including...

Fired Minnesota Timberwolves executive David Kahn told the Minneapolis Star-Tribune that forward Kevin Love needs to earn back the respect of his teammates.

Kahn, who was let go as the team's president of basketball operations on Thursday, also addressed the reported sour relationship between him and Love.

"And my feelings toward Kevin, frankly, I really like him," Kahn said Thursday. "And we've had some really productive conversations about the steps he needs to take to win back the respect and admiration of his teammates and coaches. It's almost ridiculous how much attention is paid to my relationship with him.

"In terms of importance, it has no bearing at the end of the day whether he'll be happy here and whether the organization will be happy with him. It's much more important for him to forge really meaningful relationships with his teammates and coaches."

Kahn clarified that he thinks Love, who missed most of the season with two hand injuries and knee problems, needs to step up and be more of a leader.

"I think there's some work for him to be done in terms of, he didn't play very much this year, right?" Kahn said. "And I think there's a void there because of that. Many of those guys really fought their way back from injury, sometimes multiple injuries. He had two broken hands. He came back once, didn't play well, broke his hand again and then decided to have his knee done at the end of the year when the pain was such.

"I think he has some work to do in the locker room, and I believe he will. I certainly don't want that to come across negatively. I believe he will and I believe he's on the right path."

The Timberwolves missed the playoffs four straight years under Kahn and eight consecutive seasons overall.

Former coach Flip Saunders was hired to replace Kahn on Friday.

[Nivek]

Okay, I remember that one. And, I do remember those quotes being picked up and carried in a lot of places. So, I guess it could get to "hundreds."

What Kahn says there is that Love has some work to do because he didn't play much that season -- because of two broken hands and a knee problem Love chose to get handled late in the season (after Minnesota had been eliminated from the playoffs).

Most of what I'm finding on Love's leadership, though, is stuff about how he's become more vocal this season as he's matured. (Which I discount just as much as I'd discount the innuendo about his supposedly poor leadership.)

I dunno -- I'd sure love ( ) for him to be in DC with Wall.

[barelyawake]

As would I. He's just not top of my list (Durant, Aldridge, etc). And perhaps if we got Love, we could more easily attract the rim protector/leader I would want to pair him with.

Peace unto you.

[Nivek]

Yeah, I'd take Durant over Love. I'd rather have Love than Aldridge, though.

[payitforward]

To me, and this is overwhelmingly obvious from every angle, it's enough for anyone to say he'd rather have Aldridge than Love for me to conclude that the person doesn't have the faintest idea of how to judge a basketball player.

As to saying "I want Durant" -- guess what, that isn't really a sign of perspicacious analysis either. Who doesn't want Durant?

And here's another thing -- you know what? I want to make love with Jennifer Lawrence. But I'm not planning my future around it.

[ptptpt]

I'd rather have Love than Aldridge, though.

Why is that may I ask?

[Ruzious]

To me, and this is overwhelmingly obvious from every angle, it's enough for anyone to say he'd rather have Aldridge than Love for me to conclude that the person doesn't have the faintest idea of how to judge a basketball player.

As to saying "I want Durant" -- guess what, that isn't really a sign of perspicacious analysis either. Who doesn't want Durant?

And here's another thing -- you know what? I want to make love with Jennifer Lawrence. But I'm not planning my future around it.

I've been a huge supporter of Aldridge over the years and still like him, but Love is a better player. Love is arguably the best shooting big man in the game, the best passing big man in the game, and one of the best rebounders in the game. Getting teammates involved is part of leadership, and he shows that with his passing. His defensive numbers are much better than his reputation.

Aldridge has become too much of a jump shooter - which is a shame because he has the ability to be a dominant low post scorer - with his size, length, skills and athleticism. His scoring efficiency is the lowest of his career. And he's not a dominant defender himself. And he hasn't won much either - for the same reason Love hasn't. This season, he's winning more because Portland's management went out and got depth.

[Nivek]

I'd rather have Love than Aldridge, though.

Why is that may I ask?

Love is better, by a lot. Better shooter with 3pt range, gets to the FT line more often (probably because Love's offensive game is in higher yield areas (at-rim and 3pt attempts account for 61% of his attempts) while Aldridge's mid-range game doesn't put as much stress on the defense. Love rebounds better (both ends) and is the better passer. Haven't looked back at previous seasons, but in the defense part of my metric, they rate as having a similar effect on defense.

Plus, Love is three years younger.

[nate33]

I get a thrill up my leg when I contemplate the pairing of Wall and Love. That pick-and-pop would be ridiculous.