Simple offensive improvements

[revprodeji]

This is motivated from something I read on Canis about Foye..

http://www.canishoopus.com/2009/4/17/84 ... he-january

Randy Foye had a fantastic January. It was far and away his best month as a pro and it was the type of month that, if repeated, would make him an upper-level 2 guard in the form of a upper-lower-middle-class D-Wade.
Foye had season highs in January in 3p% (.425), FG% (.448), pts (19.4), ast (4.7), and 3pa (80). Most notably, 39% of Foye's January shots were from beyond the arc. This is a big, big deal for both Foye and the team. While most of our readers are well aware of the fact that Kevin Love has a tough time getting his shot off inside the paint, I'm not so sure the fact that the league's most-blocked interior finisher (in terms of percentage) is Love's teammate: Mr. Randy Foye.
28% of Foye's shots come from the inside. 20% of these shots are blocked. 28% of his inside shots are assisted. Foye carries a .491 interior eFG. In plain English, this is a pretty accurate description of all of those kamikaze drives that Foye takes down the right side of the lane. Let's do a bit of rounding up/down. Let's say that Foye makes 1/2 of these kamikaze drives. Of his remaining shots, roughly 1/2 are missed and 1/2 are blocked. He's quite literally a 50/50 hit or miss guy on these types of plays.

If Foye had some sort of mid-range game to speak of, or if he possessed fantastic court vision, (or if I had access to something like Synergy Sports) this all-or-nothing approach could be mitigated (or explained) with the threat of a pull-up jumper or a quick pass. While I don't have the stats to back it up, my assumption here is that out of all kamikaze drives into the lane (typically the right side of the lane) Foye doesn't kick it out or collect an assist on more than 10-15% of these sorts of possessions. As for the mid-range game, Foye carries a .384 eFG on 2 point non-interior shots.

Here's where it gets interesting. For the season Foye took roughly 40% of his shots from non-interior 2 point land. 31% of his shots were from beyond the arc. In January, Foye upped his percentage of 3s, taking roughly 39% of his shots from distance. Here's the part where you really, really, really, really hope the Wolves have a solid internal stat keeping department. The question they need to answer for Foye and January is this: Where did those extra 8% of 3s come from? Did they come at the expense of his poor mid-range shooting or kamikaze drives? Either way, it's net gain for the club. We'd have to figure out what other positives (if any) come from him operating in mid-range vis-a-vis the interior, but in terms of his own personal scoring, I'd hope someone is/was/will be encouraging him to get to a 40/40/20 ratio of 3s, interior, and non-interior twos. I'd also hope that they are keeping track of what happens to those blocked shots. If it turns out that the Wolves gather about a 1/3 of those blocked shots, it would put the Randy Kamikaze Success Rate above 50%...which would be a very nice thing to have near the end of a game or quarter.

Randy Foye is never going to be Brandon Roy. What he can be is the type of player who played in January. He doesn't even need to shoot the lights out from three for this style of play to work. Let's spread out the 40/40/20 concept over 1000 shots (he took 981 this year) and realistic shooting percentages. This means that Foye would take 400 threes, 400 inside shots, and 200 non-inside two pointers. Taking his current .491 inside shooting percentage, .374 career three point percentage, and .384 non-inside 2p%, he would make 196 inside shots, 150 threes, and 77 non-inside twos. To put this in perspective, he took 308 threes, 275 inside shots, and 398 non-inside twos this season; making 111 threes, 135 inside shots, and 153 non-inside twos. In January, he likely came close to the 40/40/20 split (we don't have the break down for month-by-month) that turned him into a wildly effective player off the ball. 400 threes and 400 kamikaze drives are the goal next season for Foye. The following chart is a break down of Foye's 08/09 season and our ideal 40/40/20 campaign in a 1,000 shot season:
08/09 1000k
total shots 981 1000
3s (makes/attempts) 111/308 150/400
inside (makes/attempts) 135/275 196/400
non-inside twos (makes/attempts) 153/398 77/200
In other words, if Foye stuck to the 40/40/20 model, he would be on track to score 996 points/1000 shots (.996 pts/FGA), which would be an improvement over the .926 pts/FGA he made this year (not including FTA/FTM). This is the part of January called shot selection, shot selection, shot selection. It's also called threes, threes, threes and volume in the right spots.

It had me think about other players, and I believe that if the team notices these trends that Jefferson could be on the verge of an offensive explosion. Hard to believe for a 20/10 guy but check this out.

efg jump shot is a .375 but he attempts that 51% of the time. If he lowered the amount of times he takes jump shots his scoring, fg%, EFg would go crazy!!!!

He shoots close-up 41% and has an EFG of .606
dunks 4% at a .902 EFG
tips 4% at a .568

His "inside" scoring is 49% of his shots at a .629 EFg

If he increased his inside scoring, taking away his jump shooting, his %, scoring, and his FT attempts would drastically increase. using the same model as Canis did with Foye.

Al takes 19.5 FGA a game. I am going to round this to 20 for the math.
20x 82 is 1640 FGA a season. Now, if 51% of those (836) are jump shots. He scores on .375 of these attempts for 627 pts or 7.65 ppg (82games gets 7.5 but they are able to the honest per game, I cant. So I am doing a full season projected. The point will be the same).

Now, the remaining 804 FGs are inside, using the same equation above with the .629 efg he produces 11.9 ppg 11.9+7.5=19.4 Which is his non-FT pt scoring average and the number we will work with.

Now, lets say he quits shooting jump shots all together, very unlikely, but fun with numbers. Those 836 shot attempts are now at a .629 rather than a .375 produces 1052 pts or 12.8 ppg. A 5 point increase. it also would bring his FG% from .498 to .629. WOW

btw, doing this research showed me an interesting stat. I am sure there are other stats to consider but Jefferson at the 4 compared to the 5 is drastic. (Smaller sample size then I like, but still interesting)

At the 4 his Off/Def/Net is 83.2, 91.9, -8.7
At the 5 those # are 99.2, 101.6, -2.4

Could these numbers be that Al is that more effective as a 5 then a 4 or the person who plays next to him is better when it is a 4 than a 5?

Per 48 stats make this difference very noticeable.

His PER at a 4 is 17.9, his PER at the 5 is 26.3
His EFG at the 4 is .446, His EFG at the 5 is .502

Rebounding at the 4 is 13.2
at the 5 is 14.4

BLK at the 4 is 1.2
Blk at the 5 is 2.2

Offensively he is much better as a 5 then a 4.

Unfortunately, defensively, he is better at the 4 then 5.
http://www.82games.com/0809/08MIN15.HTM
Centers get a 19.2 PER, PF get a 13.5

He still gets better net production at the 5, but we need to understand the defensive issues. It is more complex than putting a big next to him. What else is there?

[revprodeji]

wow, something else. (*small sample size)
http://www.82games.com/0809/08MIN8.HTM

Brewer needs to be a SG not a SF. His difference on the per48 is nuts

Offensively
As a SG he is a 29 PER with 24.7 ppg, 7.3 apg,(1.5 to) 10.2 rpg, and 10.2 FTA
As a SF he is a 10.5 PER, 13.4 ppg, 3.4apg, 7.4 rpg, 2.1 FTA

Defensively
As a SG opponents are a 11.1 PER
As a SF opponents are a 16.3

This creates a PER difference of +17.8 at a SG and -5.7 at a SF.

Is this the result of Small sample size, or is Brewer that much better as a SG than a SF?

[Devilzsidewalk]

I think thats based on like 35 seconds of work at SG tho

[revprodeji]

yea, that was my concern. I spent time looking for an exact number of minutes, I know that exists. But I cannot find the minutes anywhere.

[theGreatRC]

Foye should not be part of our future plans anymore. He just can't play the position we want him to play, and the position he can play hurts the team more than it helps us. He has shown great defensive instincts in late game situations, but he is best suited as a 6th man.

[deeney0]

yea, that was my concern. I spent time looking for an exact number of minutes, I know that exists. But I cannot find the minutes anywhere.

Per 82games, Brewer played in 8% of the Wolves minutes this season, spent 0% of the time at SG, 6% at SF, and 0% at PF. Obviously some rounding going on there, I'd say 0.5% of the Wolves minutes at SG is a good guess. 0.005*48*82 = 19.68 minutes at SG

[JMillott]

You want to improve the Wolves offense? Easy enough find an actual starting caliber NBA PG and replace Telfair with that player.

My answer? Ramon Sessions

You want to improve the Wolves defense? Easy enough stop playing Ryan Gomes and Craig Smith at PF next to Al Jefferson or even better find an actual C and let your franchise player play his natural PF position.

My answer? Draft Hasheem Thabeet

You want to make a good player out of Randy Foye? Easy enough play him at SG and let him be the third or fourth option instead of pretending he is a second option.

My answer? Ramon Sessions becomes the #2 option offensively and Foye plays mostly off the ball but still gets plays run for him to get open threes.

You want to get full use of Mike Miller so that he is worth that money and giving up OJ Mayo?

My answer? Stop playing him at SG he doesn't have the lateral quickness to stay in front of them defensively and he doesn't shoot enough to score enough to justify the hit it causes the team defense. Play him at SF and start him over Ryan Gomes who isn't nearly the all around player that Miller is.

You want the biggest impact possible from Kevin Love?

My answer? Keep him in exactly the same role playing 25-30 minutes a night off the bench where he can continue to dominate other teams backup bigs on the boards and getting teams into the foul penalty at the start of the 2nd and 4th quarters.

You want the best possible impact from Ryan Gomes, Craig Smith and Brian Cardinal?

My answer? Trade them along with cash and the Jazz's 2010 pick for a player who is actually worth having.

[revprodeji]

yea, that was my concern. I spent time looking for an exact number of minutes, I know that exists. But I cannot find the minutes anywhere.

Per 82games, Brewer played in 8% of the Wolves minutes this season, spent 0% of the time at SG, 6% at SF, and 0% at PF. Obviously some rounding going on there, I'd say 0.5% of the Wolves minutes at SG is a good guess. 0.005*48*82 = 19.68 minutes at SG

I looked at the same thing, but that is not a total number. Their % thing is confusing. Even worse when we consider the limited games. I know you can find the actual min somewhere, but I have no idea.


JMillott...I said simple, so not transaction based. But tweaking current talent. Why make this thread about the same exact stuff the other threads are about?

You want to improve the Wolves offense? Easy enough find an actual starting caliber NBA PG and replace Telfair with that player.

My answer? Ramon Sessions

The difference between Sessions and Bassy is hardly worth the money to make it happen. Let alone both players fill the same role as a back-up change of base and neither should be starting on a playoff team. Points that have been argued/debated numerous times in the Sessions thread.

You want to improve the Wolves defense? Easy enough stop playing Ryan Gomes and Craig Smith at PF next to Al Jefferson or even better find an actual C and let your franchise player play his natural PF position.

My answer? Draft Hasheem Thabeet

Once again, it is a transaction. Offensively Jefferson is much better at C, defensively he is worse, but he is bad at both. So the key is to improve his defense, not to switch the position. Also, we have a very limited look at how Love plays next to Jefferson. Perhaps having him instead of Gomes/SMith it would improve his defense. Love seems to have a stronger base and handles man-man post defense better. (Watch the duncan match-up) Al is athletic enough and an above avg shot blocker that he should be able to be an average help defender. The classic "height" issues are not the problem (shot blocking/rebounding) The problem is rotating on defense and who is playing. Hopefully with love, Jefferson and a 3rd big we can solve that problem. Thabeet solves that problem nice. Other than Rubio he is probably my top target because I love the idea of splitting 96 between Love/Al/Thabeet.

You want to make a good player out of Randy Foye? Easy enough play him at SG and let him be the third or fourth option instead of pretending he is a second option.

My answer? Ramon Sessions becomes the #2 option offensively and Foye plays mostly off the ball but still gets plays run for him to get open threes.

Are you related to Sessions? I just do not see it. let alone the idea that he could/should be a second option. He hardly secured the starting pg job in mil. Why do you hink he is going to blow up? I do agree that our best plan with Foye is to use him as a 3rd option. Love as a 3rd/4th also. Brewer as a 5th perhaps. Al as the 1st and add a pentrator as the other 1st/2nd. You say Sessions and I disagree there, but we agree that adding someone of that skill set is key. if we use our draft pick on Thabeet then this could be harder. Perhaps an expiring+asset for a trade? (*Unrelated, but if you use the "draft profile" search on DX and put "slasher, defense, athlete" the options are Lawson and Rubio. Perhaps using the Miami pick+ something to move up and get Lawson?

You want to get full use of Mike Miller so that he is worth that money and giving up OJ Mayo?

My answer? Stop playing him at SG he doesn't have the lateral quickness to stay in front of them defensively and he doesn't shoot enough to score enough to justify the hit it causes the team defense. Play him at SF and start him over Ryan Gomes who isn't nearly the all around player that Miller is.

I am not sure he is athletic enough to be a SF either. I wonder if we could back this up with stats?

http://www.82games.com/0809/08MIN7.HTM

Too bad we have no historical stats. But his PER is even at SF and SG. Apparently he has played more minutes at the 3 than 2 also. (*weird, I never noticed how good his EFG was this year.) He was very good this year, just hardly shot the ball. How do we change that? Perhaps make him the leader of the second unit? Nah, perhaps he is better an asset as a trade piece?

You want the biggest impact possible from Kevin Love?

My answer? Keep him in exactly the same role playing 25-30 minutes a night off the bench where he can continue to dominate other teams backup bigs on the boards and getting teams into the foul penalty at the start of the 2nd and 4th quarters.

Draft Thabeet and split 4/5 3 ways with jefferson/Love/Thebeet. Who cares who starts, they all play starter minutes. By playing 25-30 Love is obviously against other starters. I do not think he needs to be on the bench, but a 3-headed monster would be nice. But he has the talent to be more than an effective starter. Why would you think he needs to be off the bench?

You want the best possible impact from Ryan Gomes, Craig Smith and Brian Cardinal?

My answer? Trade them along with cash and the Jazz's 2010 pick for a player who is actually worth having.

Ha..I have no problem trading those guys, but they are not bad pieces if they are in the proper role. Smith should not be our 1st big off the bench. But put him as the 4th big behind Al/Love/Thabeet and he fits nice. Gomes is an incredibly inconsistent starter, but if he is the bench SF in a James Posey role (back up 3/small ball 4) he is a very nice piece. But the key with those two ideas is to have a 3rd big, and a starting SF to push those two back.

[deeney0]

I looked at the same thing, but that is not a total number. Their % thing is confusing. Even worse when we consider the limited games. I know you can find the actual min somewhere, but I have no idea.

idk, works out for Love (for example). Says he played in 52% of the minutes, which works out to 2047 minutes. Based on nba.com he actually played in 2048 minutes. I think their % are sound. Brewer played in 307/3936 minutes, which works out to 7.8%, which they round up to 8%. How they distribute between positions I know not, bu I trust them.

[revprodeji]

yea, my issue is the limited amount. But that is the problem with any kind of projection with Brewer. But we are only allowed to realize this when we project Brewer as a positive. if you want to insult him, the poster talking about him, and his future then use the limited amount of games Brewer has played to prove your point.

[JMillott]

I say Mike Miller is the SF not because of his own production or because or his ability to defend either position is noticeably better at either. I say it because Randy Foye is a much better SG then Ryan Gomes is a SF.

I also think a Foye and Miller combo gives them excellent ball handling and floor spacing leaving them with a far wider spectrum of possible PG's if having three point range isn't such a premium need.

Obvoiusly me preference is to sign Sessions whom I feel would be practically impossible to defend with them spacing the floor and a big like Al Jefferson who has such excellent hands to catch interior passes that many bigs would fumble out of bounds.

I also think Thabeet would be the only player teams would be comfortable leaving to try and contain Sessions constant penetration which should provide Thabeet enough easy shots, dunks, lay ups and putbacks to get reasonable production from him as to make his offense worth putting up with to get his defense.

It is very important that Telfair not be the PG if the Wolves do in-fact draft Thabeet. They wouldn't function together in the same lineup just as Brewer was unable to function together with Telfair either.

With defensive specialists you have to ensure that you have players good enough to ensure that teams will leave them all alone in order to get them the easiest shots possible. These bunnies allow them to be productive and efficient offensively on top of their defensive impact alone.

[Twizman]

This thread is too complex and not simple enough.

[GopherIt!]

.esnes erom sekam ti sdrawkcab ti daer uoy fi

[Commodor]

Hey, check this trade. What you think it would improve both sides immedietly and address problems we both have.

Warriors send

Andris Biedrins
Marco Bellineli
#7

T'Wolves send
Jefferson
#5

You guys get a true center and we get a power forward we need. Love and Jefferson both will demand starting time bcuz both are pf at heart. Also you could get a solid sg. We'd swap picks because the Warriors would have to take the chance on Thabeet. Why don't you guys take Thabeet? It goes back to Love and Jefferson needing start time. Your team gets a little more rebounding and also a guard that is good from the outside and a good defender and distributor. Love gets to develop into the focus of your offense. If any of you have watched the warriors you'd have seen our thickest guy is our 6'8'' Turiaf and after him there's a 50lb drop to Andris. Jefferson gives us the post presence we need.

[AQuintus]

Change the #5 to the 18th pick, and it would at least be worth discussing. Right now, though, Jefferson has much more value than Biedrins, so GS being able to trade Biedrins for Jefferson and move up in the draft makes absolutely no sense.

[revprodeji]

I am gonna make another thread with that idea.

[Commodor]

You guys arent gonna be looking for Thabeet after this trade, and that's all GS will want. It will be pretty indifferent if we make that trade on your end.

[revprodeji]

A top 10 pick is never indifferent. if we made the trade we would use the pick to bolster the backcourt. Regardless, your initial trade is having us give you more value in the secondary part, when Al>>AB so the compensation would need to come from GSW.