Hollinger Rates the Suns

JohnVancouver · Post #1 » by **JohnVancouver** » Sat Apr 5, 2008 12:30 am

Phoenix Suns

Glass half-full: We've won 10 out of 13, and the three losses were at Detroit, at Boston and at Denver.

Glass half-empty: We're still only 13-9 with Shaquille O'Neal.

Key factoids you might not know: I slammed Suns president Steve Kerr for trading for Shaq; based on the contents of my inbox, it appears one or two Suns fans noticed this. I still have some misgivings about the deal, especially once you get into next year and the year after, but it's hard not to notice how well the Suns are rolling right now.

The key has not been the play of Shaq, who continues to have an insanely high turnover rate. (Seriously, how do you make three turnovers a game if you're taking only eight shots?) Rather, it's been his apparent impact on Amare Stoudemire. The Suns made this deal in part to move Stoudemire out of the center spot, so you have to give them credit for the results.

In 22 games at power forward, Stoudemire has been the best player in the league. No, really, he's been that good. He has averaged 29.4 points on 58.2 percent shooting and averaged nearly 11 free-throw attempts.

But the number that maybe is most important is 36.7. That's how many minutes per game he's played with Shaq, after averaging only 33.0 before the trade because he was in foul trouble too often. Stoudemire's foul rate is still fairly high, but it has declined just enough that he's able to play his regular minutes.

A pessimist would note the Suns have shot unbelievably well on 3s during the recent hot streak, and that's unlikely to hold up over an extended period. But if Stoudemire keeps playing this freakishly well it's not going to matter too much, because right now the difference between New Stoudemire and Old Stoudemire more than offsets the difference between Shawn Marion and Shaquille O'Neal. I'd have never thought that possible, but it's happening.

Remaining schedule: It could be worse. Road games against San Antonio and Houston won't be fun, but they have two gimmies (home vs. Minnesota, at Memphis), and they should be able to handle home games against Dallas and Golden State.

Crystal ball says: The way they're playing they might grab six of the final seven and steal the division crown from L.A. The unfortunate thing is they probably have to win six of the seven, because the Lakers own the tiebreaker. So the smart money remains on the Suns ending up with the No. 5 seed and a brutal first-round pairing against Utah.

It's possible they could move up to No. 3 even if they don't win the division, because the Suns still play San Antonio and will own the tiebreak with a victory. But again, this scenario pretty much depends on them winning at least six of their last seven.

-SDU- · Post #2 » by **-SDU-** » Sat Apr 5, 2008 12:55 am

i dont like his opinion whether he is praising the suns (once in a blue moon) or criticising them (always)

he can try to make excuses for why he was wrong about the trade saying amare has stepped up, BUT THAT WAS ALWAYS THE WHOLE POINT, a point he continually overlooked intentionally when bashing the suns deal

he wanted to hate us so he based his argument that way and just compared marion to shaq, not looking at the impact on the team

ignorant journalism IMO so for him to offer it up now as some sort of excuse as to why he was wrong is BS, instead it just highlights why we shouldnt read his articles in the first place - because he has as much knowledge and insight into the game as manute bol's pet goanna

-SDU- · Post #3 » by **-SDU-** » Sat Apr 5, 2008 12:59 am

Glass half-empty: We're still only 13-9 with Shaquille O'Neal.

what a joke, i guess youre not allowed an adjustment period when you change your entire system midseason in the middle of your toughest stretch of the season nowadays?

Post #4 » by **tsherkin** » Sat Apr 5, 2008 4:13 am

-SDU- wrote:
Glass half-empty: We're still only 13-9 with Shaquille O'Neal.

what a joke, i guess youre not allowed an adjustment period when you change your entire system midseason in the middle of your toughest stretch of the season nowadays?

Dude, that's the BEST he could come up with for a negative comment.

Think about it.

-SDU- · Post #5 » by **-SDU-** » Sat Apr 5, 2008 4:23 am

yeah i know ;-)

tho he didnt have a problem coming up with negative comments a month ago

impulsenine · Post #6 » by **impulsenine** » Sat Apr 5, 2008 4:45 am

Pfff... half-empty:

Barbosa is suddenly super-streaky. He looked like he was going to become a scoring machine, and he's regressed.

Diaw is still, usually, Doris.

Nash is beginning to show his age; our dismal b2b record isn't anything to be proud of.

Our turnovers are improving, but I'm not sure we'll have it DOWN before the playoffs start.

We still make boneheaded mistakes regularly.

Refs still give us zero respect.

Our adjustment period is the last thing I'm worried about.

Arles · Post #7 » by **Arles** » Sat Apr 5, 2008 3:11 pm

JohnVancouver wrote:The key has not been the play of Shaq, who continues to have an insanely high turnover rate. (Seriously, how do you make three turnovers a game if you're taking only eight shots?)

He shows no understanding of the Suns system with this comment. in addition to the adjustment phase, Shaq has now become the center of the Suns offense in the half court. So, while he is only taking 8 shots, he is creating around 20 open a looks a game from dumping down and kicking when the defense collapses.

Here's the stats for a player one season: 19 PPG, 13 RPG, 3.02 TOPG and 12 shots a game. That player? Charles Barkley. I guess he had "an insanely high turnover rate" too, right? You can't just look at shots when determining how many touches someone gets. Shaq has 2.9 TO on 13 shots when they won with Miami - was that terrible as well?

Frank Lee · Post #8 » by **Frank Lee** » Sat Apr 5, 2008 5:22 pm

is an offensive foul considered a turn over ?

nevetsov · Post #9 » by **nevetsov** » Sun Apr 6, 2008 1:32 am

Frank Lee wrote:is an offensive foul considered a turn over ?

Affirmative.

whambamslam · Post #10 » by **whambamslam** » Sun Apr 6, 2008 5:15 pm

Frank Lee wrote:is an offensive foul considered a turn over ?

Yes thats what I was going to point out when he point out the turn over rate. Also 3 seconds in the key is a turnover too.

Post #11 » by **tsherkin** » Mon Apr 7, 2008 12:50 am

Arles wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

He shows no understanding of the Suns system with this comment. in addition to the adjustment phase, Shaq has now become the center of the Suns offense in the half court. So, while he is only taking 8 shots, he is creating around 20 ope a looks a game from dumping down and kicking when the defense collapses.

Here's the stats for a player one season: 19 PPG, 13 RPG, 3.02 TOPG and 12 shots a game. That player? Charles Barkley. I guess he had "an insanely high turnover rate" too, right? You can't just look at shots when determining how many touches someone gets. Shaq has 2.9 TO on 13 shots when they won with Miami - was that terrible as well?

FWIW, he's not just look at raw TPG.

Hollinger is looking at Turnover Rate, which is actually the percentage of his possessions that end in a turnover (which is a hair over 18 for Shaq).

Figure Shaq's using just under 22.5 possessions per 40 minutes (22.4) in 29.3 mpg, against 18.3% of those turning into turnovers...

That's his point; he's heavily involved in the offense (as a passer rather than a scorer) but he's also posting a VERY high turnover rate...

And that article is out of date, he's at 21.7% now. Which, for those of us watching, is by FAR the highest of his career (15.9 as a rookie is his closest and besides that, he didn't post one higher than 11.4 until 03-04).

When Shaq's usage rate was at it's peak, he was a 9.9% - 11.0% kind of guy.

See why Hollinger is suddenly so worried? A guy getting 31, 32 possessions a game was only producing turnovers on about 10% of those and now he's about doubled his turnover rate on considerably fewer shots (and overall possessions).

Shaq's posting the lowest usage rate of his career in Phoenix and his turnvover rate is actually higher than his usage rate, which is bloody terrible.

impulsenine · Post #12 » by **impulsenine** » Mon Apr 7, 2008 10:02 am

I've said it before and I'll say it again:

Suns with an 20+ turnover-per-game average is a first round exit
Suns with an 8-turnover average is a championship team.

Arles · Post #13 » by **Arles** » Mon Apr 7, 2008 4:27 pm

tsherkin wrote:FWIW, he's not just look at raw TPG.

Hollinger is looking at Turnover Rate, which is actually the percentage of his possessions that end in a turnover (which is a hair over 18 for Shaq).

Figure Shaq's using just under 22.5 possessions per 40 minutes (22.4) in 29.3 mpg, against 18.3% of those turning into turnovers...

That's his point; he's heavily involved in the offense (as a passer rather than a scorer) but he's also posting a VERY high turnover rate...

And that article is out of date, he's at 21.7% now. Which, for those of us watching, is by FAR the highest of his career (15.9 as a rookie is his closest and besides that, he didn't post one higher than 11.4 until 03-04).

When Shaq's usage rate was at it's peak, he was a 9.9% - 11.0% kind of guy.

See why Hollinger is suddenly so worried? A guy getting 31, 32 possessions a game was only producing turnovers on about 10% of those and now he's about doubled his turnover rate on considerably fewer shots (and overall possessions).

Comparing Marion's turnover rate to Shaq's is silly. When Marion got the ball, he did one of three things very quickly: Dunk, Shoot, pass. He never drove, he never held the ball to draw defense, he never posted up. Everytime Shaq touches the ball, he has 4-6 arms slapping at him.

Shaq's going to have a higher turnover rate because of the new system, speed and his role - but it's not a big deal. At the end of the day, remember we are talking about 1-1.5 more turnovers over an entire day. So, is getting the 10-15 better looks and offensive rebounds from Shaq (not counting the improved play of Amare) worth the extra turnover a game? I think so