Why The Hate with Warrick

kermster · Post #1 » by **kermster** » Sat Jul 17, 2010 8:25 am

Dont really understand the hate on Hakkim Warrick? Why does everyone hate him so much? Everything I have been reading on here is either getting rid of him, or Sarver was stupid for signing him. If we dont make any more moves I understand were a lil short on PF. At the same time, if he pans out, we will be OK. The guy was alright in Memphis. I think in our system he will do pretty good. Plus R bench is up sized allot now. WE made it to the WCF because of R bench! It wasn't because of Amare. If our bench didnt play as good as they did, we would have lost to the Sterns, let alone the Blazers! So why the Hate whats so bad about the guy? Hes NOT AMARE! but a nice starter. I feel like everyone is forgetting about the DRAGON, and ROLO! They both have 2yrs under there belts, and they both look very promising(LOPEZ ON USA TEAM, DRAGIC ON THE Slovenian TEAM)! I think he will do good in our system. So whats the deal with the hate?

Sorry if this is not thread worthy, kinda new at posting.... but not a NOOB on the boards!

MaryvalesFinest · Post #2 » by **MaryvalesFinest** » Sat Jul 17, 2010 8:44 am

With all the trades and signings lately this one has the biggest question mark, Frye might have been overpaid but he fits the system and we know his skillset, Hedo had a down year but has always been an underated player and should do well in this system, Childress has always been a solid player so that leaves Warrick...He can either become Amare lite which would make this a good signing or Stromile Swift part deux which wouldn't be so good...Good news is his contract is incentive based by minutes.

kermster · Post #3 » by **kermster** » Sat Jul 17, 2010 9:17 am

MaryvalesFinest wrote:With all the trades and signings lately this one has the biggest question mark, Frye might have been overpaid but he fits the system and we know his skillset, Hedo had a down year but has always been an underated player and should do well in this system, Childress has always been a solid player so that leaves Warrick...He can either become Amare lite which would make this a good signing or Stromile Swift part deux which wouldn't be so good...Good news is his contract is incentive based by minutes.

that is good news, but why is everyone so worried about it? Hes not that bad of a player. I really dont feel its right to compare him to an Amare type figure(just because theres only a handfull of players out there that r better then him, or less at that position). Theres a ton of Amares shots that came off of assists, so shouldnt those assists or shots go to someone else? Just saying! cause I truly feel Lopez could actually be a 20 /10 guy with the team we have, if not better...... Plus with Dragic coming alive in the Sterns series, I feel we have a very good team. I guess I just dont understand why all the worrying is going on just because we have him.

bballno21 · Post #4 » by **bballno21** » Sat Jul 17, 2010 9:24 am

Well, I've had same thoughts for a while. 4mil/yr for three years (4th is team option) is not bad for 20mpg player. Plus he is NOT a bad player. He's on par/a bit subpar rebounding wise with Amare. He has arguably best footwork among 20mpg players, nice midrange jumpe and some really crazy hops. I don't believe he will turn into Stromile Swift no. 2 just because his BBIQ is much higher. Only problem we have is how will Alvin divide given 240 minutes into all our players (as current roster stands).

zerowolf88 · Post #5 » by **zerowolf88** » Sat Jul 17, 2010 9:38 am

hes not amare

thamadkant · Post #6 » by **thamadkant** » Sat Jul 17, 2010 9:43 am

just look at his plus sides. 6'9. Thirty five plus inch verticals. Seven foot wing span. He never really got much playing time. Always a back up. But young as. He is a low confident and less aggressive josh smith. i can see him having a steve nash awakening and live up to his potential. I hope so anyways. He he

kermster · Post #7 » by **kermster** » Sat Jul 17, 2010 10:01 am

zerowolf88 wrote:hes not amare

Really!!!! I would have never guessed it!!! :lol:

kermster · Post #8 » by **kermster** » Sat Jul 17, 2010 10:04 am

bballno21 wrote:Well, I've had same thoughts for a while. 4mil/yr for three years (4th is team option) is not bad for 20mpg player. Plus he is NOT a bad player. He's on par/a bit subpar rebounding wise with Amare. He has arguably best footwork among 20mpg players, nice midrange jumpe and some really crazy hops. I don't believe he will turn into Stromile Swift no. 2 just because his BBIQ is much higher. Only problem we have is how will Alvin divide given 240 minutes into all our players (as current roster stands).

Dont you really think Alvin knows what hes doing though. He is on board with the signings. Plus he LOVES playing at least 10 deep

kermster · Post #9 » by **kermster** » Sat Jul 17, 2010 10:06 am

thamadkant wrote:just look at his plus sides. 6'9. Thirty five plus inch verticals. Seven foot wing span. He never really got much playing time. Always a back up. But young as. He is a low confident and less aggressive josh smith. i can see him having a steve nash awakening and live up to his potential. I hope so anyways. He he

Same here, but the whole point is whats his downside? I think he will be a good fit here!

cmw17 · Post #10 » by **cmw17** » Sat Jul 17, 2010 11:02 am

He's just an average NBA player, nothing special about him other than his athleticism, and that can only get you so far if you don't have other skills developed in the NBA. He's just adding depth to a team that already has way too much depth.

It's just stupid that finally after so many cheapskate years, Sarver decides to spend money on the team but there's no logic in what he's trying to do other than assemble a team with one Star (Nash) and a ton of average players that he has to try to make look great.

And it would be one thing if we were to get guys that actually give us something we've been missing for ages which is Rebounding and defense, but nope, once again Warrick is the perfect example of a player that's just not what we need right now. And since adding Hedo and Childress, and resigning Frye, he won't even play that many minutes to warrant the contract he signed. It's just a waste of money.

bballno21 · Post #11 » by **bballno21** » Sat Jul 17, 2010 11:41 am

As great as Alvin is, this is still going to be tough for him - 10 guys with the ability to play 25+mpg. But that's a bit OT in this thread...

Warrick will be good for us. I can see all the alley-oops passes on fastbreaks thrown on him (like we did with Marion), some set-up plays for his midrange J and couple of drives using his athleticism and footwork. He's great at defending perimeter guys (when he's trying to be aggressive), lacks weight against stronger 4's, but is trying to alter shots (though will not block a lot of them). Plus he's great guy, even though bit shy. Not doubt he won't mess our chemistry and I don't see him complaining about his PT.

Sarver is spending couple of years already. He plus Gentry didn't have much better chances at improving our team at that time - all top notch FA's signed, any great player left (who'd fit our team), ...

DaDragicShow · Post #12 » by **DaDragicShow** » Sat Jul 17, 2010 12:15 pm

He's is going to be good playing alongside with Steve Nash. I too don't understand why 95% of the board hates him. People will be sorry when he turns into a good player and averages more rebounds then Amare ever have.

Wormwood74 · Post #13 » by **Wormwood74** » Sat Jul 17, 2010 12:57 pm

The reason I don't like Warrick is because his low bball IQ, awful defense, and terrible rebounding for a PF absolutely kill his own team while he's on the court. They're so bad, his offensive abilities don't make up for them. Here's his career net +/- per 48 numbers, where a negative number indicates the team does better with him off the court than with him on it.

2009-2010 CHI: -4.7
2009-2010 MIL: -7.9
2008-2009 MEM: +2.9
2007-2008 MEM: -12.0
2006-2007 MEM: -8.5
2005-2006 MEM: -11.0

The lone year he had a positive number he was on a team which won 24 games, and Greg Buckner and Quinton Ross posted better net +/- numbers. For points of comparison, Earl Clark posted a -10.1 this year, and Collins posted a -7.0.

Warrick made his teams a LOT worse defensively when he was on the court.

2009-2010 MIL: 4.2 points per 100 possessions worse on defense with Warrick on the court
2009-2010 CHI: 6.2 points worse
2008-2009 MEM: 1.5 points better (Keep in mind, Memphis was 20th in defensive efficiency)
2007-2008 MEM: 5.1 points worse
2006-2007: MEM: 3.1 points worse
2005-2006: MEM: 5.9 points worse

To put this in perspective of how severe a swing in points per 100 possessions a number like 6.2 or 5.9 is, for 2009-2010, the lowest team points per 100 possessions in the NBA last year was 100.2, the highest (worst) was 110.2. Putting Warrick on the court, in most years he's played, is enough to send a good defensive team to the the lower end of the bottom half of the pack.

For additional perspective, here's how our frontcourt did in terms of net defensive effect last year:

Frye made us 0.3 points per 100 possessions worse
Stoudemire made us 3.3 points worse
Amundson made us 3.2 points better
Lopez made us 0.5 points worse
Dudley made us 0.8 points better

So, to sum it all up, Warrick has never been a player that has made his team even marginally better, unless that team is so awful it's in the running for worst record in the NBA. His negatives have always outweighed his positives, and there is no reason at all to believe they will in Phoenix, especially considering how much we are going to be relying on him for defensive rebounding, since neither Frye nor Lopez are strong rebounders at the center position.

RaisingArizona · Post #14 » by **RaisingArizona** » Sat Jul 17, 2010 1:19 pm

I liked picking up Warrick. I too don't understand why everyone else is freaking out when he's on a good contract as well.

DaDragicShow · Post #15 » by **DaDragicShow** » Sat Jul 17, 2010 1:51 pm

ginobiliflops wrote:I liked picking up Warrick. I too don't understand why everyone else is freaking out when he's on a good contract as well.

Haha nice avy Ryan. :wink:

DRK · Post #16 » by **DRK** » Sat Jul 17, 2010 1:55 pm

DaDragicShow wrote:He's is going to be good playing alongside with Steve Nash. I too don't understand why 95% of the board hates him. People will be sorry when he turns into a good player and averages more rebounds then Amare ever have.

Count me into the 5% that doesnt hate him. I reckon he'll prove everyone wrong and defend well, and throw down better dunks than Amare.

I really hope Warrick starts

bballno21 · Post #17 » by **bballno21** » Sat Jul 17, 2010 3:01 pm

Well... I don't like this number game. It's nice to study them and that's...that's all.

According to numbers: Dragic and Hill don't make our team better, Glen Davis is terrible player, Roko Ukic is as good as OJ Mayo and Andre Iguodala combined and Ryan Bowen is league's MVP.
You can't make conclusions from numbers like you or I did.
For example - DaJuan Blair was Duncan's back-up. How could have 2nd rounder like him positive NET behind HOF? Does it mean that Blair is bad player? Not... Another - Kenyon Martin has worse NET than Chris Andersen who played more against 2nd unit and was more effective offensive scorer (just because of his garbage points)...
Just my two cents, it's absurd making those type of conclusions IMHO

Post #18 » by **tsherkin** » Sat Jul 17, 2010 3:21 pm

Warrick's sample sizes for those +/- numbers aren't great, especially because he's been playing behind some very good PFs (especially Pau, who was a good defender even in Memphis).

The bigger point of contention is that he's a wussy rebounder. He's about as good a rebounder as Andrea Bargnani, which is nothing shy of pathetic. His offensive rebounding is pretty decent, but he's a godawful waste of skin as a defensive rebounder.

In Chicago, he actually rebounded better as a SF than as a PF. In Milwaukee, he played a bunch of 4 and 5 and rebounded about the same as he did in Chicago. Last year in Memphis, he rebounded well at the 5 but only mediocre at the 4... and in 08, he rebounded very well at the 3, mediocre at the 4 and terribly at the 5.

The theme is that he's inconsistent and unreliable on the boards, and the only times he really rebounded well were in small sample sizes playing away from his natural position for a few minutes here and there. THAT is a lot more concerning than his +/-.

If he comes in rebounding like Bargs, that's going to present a problem for this team because it's accustomed to having at least one decent rebounder on the floor, be it Amare or Marion. Hopefully Childress comes in and goes all Marion on us.

On the flip side of that, he is a decent offensive rebounder and he, Childress and Lopez will do a fair bit to give Phoenix a strong ability to collect misses and renew offensive possessions. That will be quite helpful.

Post #19 » by **lilfishi22** » Sat Jul 17, 2010 3:41 pm

I don't hate him and I don't think his contract is terrible either but I just don't think he was a good signing. I thought Lou was much better suited off the bench as a 15-20mpg because he knows his role, gives us another dimension, is already established as a great locker room guy and could've been had for probably what Warrick was signed for. I like Lou the most because he knows his role and adds another dimension to our game, you bring in Pau Gasol and he'll play just as hard and won't complain about PT. You bring in Brandon Bass and he'll still play just as hard and won't complain about PT. Not saying Warrick will be any trouble but the guy is coming in expecting some consistent and decent PT.

Another reason I don't think he was a good signing is because he just doesn't seem like the guy we need. Sure we need depth but we're basically adding another tall guy who can\t rebound. What we needed was a guy who can either score quite well but can't defend or a guy who can't score very well but can defend and just pick up garbage buckets. What we got is a guy who can't rebound, isn't known as a scorer and can't defend. And we have him for another few years.

Hate? No hate. He just isn't what we need.

Wormwood74 · Post #20 » by **Wormwood74** » Sat Jul 17, 2010 3:56 pm

@Tsherkin,

Warrick's best year rebounding wasn't even as good as Amare's worst.

As for offensive vs. defensive rebounds...defensive rebounding rate is strongly correlated with winning percentage, but offensive rebounding rate has only a very slight positive correlation with the same. If you want to know how a player's rebounding will affect the team as a whole (i.e. do we win or not) look at defensive rate, not total or offensive.