Is the team better without Lee?

[CCComboBreaker]

I don't see how we're better off with a player that makes us deeper overall. A lot of the turnovers we had in round 1 could have been avoided if we had Lee to defer to. Curry would have had an easier time dealing with the double team if he could pass the ball to Lee at 18-20 feet. I also don't think Lee has to be gone for Bogut to shine, likewise Z-Bo doesn't take away from Marc Gasol.

[marthafokker]

I don't see how we're better off with a player that makes us deeper overall. A lot of the turnovers we had in round 1 could have been avoided if we had Lee to defer to. Curry would have had an easier time dealing with the double team if he could pass the ball to Lee at 18-20 feet. I also don't think Lee has to be gone for Bogut to shine, likewise Z-Bo doesn't take away from Marc Gasol.

Curry/Jack fumble happy (or so called unforced TOs by our hated broadcasters) are not dependent on Lee being on the court.

As for ZBo/Gasol, they are the team's headliners. For GSW, Bogut/Lee are more like opening act.

[CCComboBreaker]

I don't see how we're better off with a player that makes us deeper overall. A lot of the turnovers we had in round 1 could have been avoided if we had Lee to defer to. Curry would have had an easier time dealing with the double team if he could pass the ball to Lee at 18-20 feet. I also don't think Lee has to be gone for Bogut to shine, likewise Z-Bo doesn't take away from Marc Gasol.

Curry/Jack fumble happy (or so called unforced TOs by our hated broadcasters) are not dependent on Lee being on the court.

As for ZBo/Gasol, they are the team's headliners. For GSW, Bogut/Lee are more like opening act.

Not dependent on Lee, but I'm willing to bet Lee makes trapping Curry midcourt seem less like a good idea.

Not with the way Klay was playing (on offense). I'd say the opening act saved the show in that case.

[cladden]

The problem with Lee is that hes effectively a frontrunner. By which I mean his game is great against poor or average opponents, but goes down even more than his teammates when confronted with quality opponents.

Here is how his +- per 100 possessions looked by month of the regular season. The important number is the distance he was from the best Warriors for that month; that way everyone is on same footing. I only compared the guys who played big minutes:

november: +0.6, 0.1 less than 1st place player Carl Landry
december: +9.3, in first place himself
january: -0.4, 5.2 less than 1st place player Harrison Barnes
february: -9.8, 11.3 less than 1st place player Jarrett Jack (lee was really horrid in Feb)
march: +7.3, in first place himself

Jan and Feb were the months we were facing the tough schedule. It is expected that he would be worse in an absolute sense during those months, along with all the other Warriors. What may not be expected is that he becomes much less valuable than his teammates, in a relative sense, when the quality of the competition goes up.

Lee just isn't meant for taking on the big boys. This, the size of his contract, and some expected decline going forward (while his contract increases) all make me want to see him traded.

It did not surprise me that the Warriors started playing better in the playoffs when he went out.

I am going to go ahead and assume that you could do better if you wanted numbers for Lee's play against quality opponents than splitting by month and vaguely remembering what our schedule was like.

[floppymoose]

It would be nice to break it out explicitly by opponent quality, I agree. But I am not vaguely remembering the schedule at all. I was staring right at it as I got the month results back. If you want to rebut the numbers, feel free to jump in and provide some data.

[GSForever]

I like how Bogut is able to pick his spot where he wants to make a screen then roll to the hoop. Lee does take away what Bogut wants to do on the floor. It will be interesting to see how Bogut plays next year with Lee back on the floor.

[cladden]

It would be nice to break it out explicitly by opponent quality, I agree. But I am not vaguely remembering the schedule at all. I was staring right at it as I got the month results back. If you want to rebut the numbers, feel free to jump in and provide some data.

I don't have the data

I realize that our schedule during that stretch and Lee (I am sure among others) had a bad stretch there but it would be a lot more compelling if one could prove this to be a pattern throughout. There are plenty of games against good opponents in other months where he excelled and games against bad opponents in March. Maybe it all lines up but maybe not.

[cladden]

Its very exciting ton see Bogut board and score where Lee is usually at. Should have saved our amnesty

Ridiculous. I don't think Bogut scores at all where Lee does and really. You'd amnesty Lee? He's a huge part of why we're in the playoffs.

Also, people talk about playing defense as if it's something that Lee just considers himself too cool to do and that if they could be 6-9 they'd forsure do a better job than him at it. These are the couple of hundred best competitors in a highly competitive market at play. It's not like he just doesn't give a **** and decides not to be a good defender.

You've made no notion of Bogut being able to score at will. You're along for the ride in the bandwagon mobile! I've mentioned before that Bogut needed to be involved in the offense and could easily average 10-12ppg.

I might have picked a better team somewhere between 92 and now if I was a bandwagon fan.
Not sure what the point is. Of course I am happy about Bogut scoring and finally looking reasonably healthy and spry. Make no mistake, I'd much rather have Bogut active for the Spurs series than Lee if I had to choose. I just don't think they score in the same way or really do anything in the same way. I believe they'll complement each other pretty well they're both healthy.

[Onus]

Bogut has looked good as the screener in the pick and roll, a role Lee usually occupies

[oaktownwarriors87]

The problem with Lee is that hes effectively a frontrunner. By which I mean his game is great against poor or average opponents, but goes down even more than his teammates when confronted with quality opponents.

Here is how his +- per 100 possessions looked by month of the regular season. The important number is the distance he was from the best Warriors for that month; that way everyone is on same footing. I only compared the guys who played big minutes:

november: +0.6, 0.1 less than 1st place player Carl Landry
december: +9.3, in first place himself
january: -0.4, 5.2 less than 1st place player Harrison Barnes
february: -9.8, 11.3 less than 1st place player Jarrett Jack (lee was really horrid in Feb)
march: +7.3, in first place himself

Jan and Feb were the months we were facing the tough schedule. It is expected that he would be worse in an absolute sense during those months, along with all the other Warriors. What may not be expected is that he becomes much less valuable than his teammates, in a relative sense, when the quality of the competition goes up.

Lee just isn't meant for taking on the big boys. This, the size of his contract, and some expected decline going forward (while his contract increases) all make me want to see him traded.

It did not surprise me that the Warriors started playing better in the playoffs when he went out.

What was the +/- for Curry, Bogut, Thompson and Barnes in February?

It would be nice to break it out explicitly by opponent quality, I agree. But I am not vaguely remembering the schedule at all. I was staring right at it as I got the month results back. If you want to rebut the numbers, feel free to jump in and provide some data.

Just so everyone knows, Lee has a +/- of +7.56 against .500 teams.

-126 without Lee in 582 minutes (-10.39 per 48)
-99 with Lee in 1,674 minutes (-2.83 per 48)

[statsman]

Just so everyone knows, Lee has a +/- of +7.56 against .500 teams.

-126 without Lee in 582 minutes (-10.39 per 48)
-99 with Lee in 1,674 minutes (-2.83 per 48)

Hmm, I wonder what I am doing wrong. Against .500+ teams, I have Lee at -99, but the team total at -130, making the without Lee number -31 (which, using the minutes above, would be -2.56 per 48). In short, not much difference either way, with a slight advantage without Lee.

You sure your -126 is not team total for the season against .500+ teams?

EDIT: My -130 includes the 4 point loss to the Knicks that Lee missed.

[oaktownwarriors87]

Just so everyone knows, Lee has a +/- of +7.56 against .500 teams.

-126 without Lee in 582 minutes (-10.39 per 48)
-99 with Lee in 1,674 minutes (-2.83 per 48)

Hmm, I wonder what I am doing wrong. Against .500+ teams, I have Lee at -99, but the team total at -130, making the without Lee number -31 (which, using the minutes above, would be -2.56 per 48). In short, not much difference either way, with a slight advantage without Lee.

You sure your -126 is not team total for the season against .500+ teams?

EDIT: My -130 includes the 4 point loss to the Knicks that Lee missed.

Wow. Your right. I didn't do the New York game and I didn't subtract the Lee numbers from the total.

-31 without Lee in 630 minutes (-2.36 per 48)
-99 with Lee in 1,674 minutes (-2.83 per 48)

So Lee has a +/- of -0.47 against .500 teams.

-72 without Lee in 421 minutes (-8.21 per 48)
+277 with Lee in 1232 minutes (+10.80 per 48)

And a +19.01 +/- against below .500 teams.

Those numbers makes way more sense. One question that might be raised is that without Lee the Warriors are -2.36 against winning teams and -8.21 against losing teams. Why do the Warriors play worse against losing teams without Lee? I'm guessing that the Warriors are more likely to be maintaining a lead against losing teams while they are playing catchup against winning teams.

[watch1958]

Why do the Warriors play worse against losing teams without Lee? I'm guessing that the Warriors are more likely to be maintaining a lead against losing teams while they are playing catchup against winning teams.

Probably true. For example, in the game where the Bulls smoked them at Oracle, the scrubs mad a decent run to make the final score deceptively close.

Team was -30 with Lee, +12 without him. Games like that impact +/- a lot.

[Onus]

bballbreakdown had a piece about how there are certain players that are consistent against all teams, while others who pad their stats against below avg teams. This would be interesting to do for Lee.

[Onus]

reading Adam Lauridsen's piece on how to beat the spurs, he had a point of shooting the three:

Shoot the three, early and often — It’s the Warriors’ best shot, for two reasons. First, they’re great at it, connecting at a league-leading 40.3% during the regular season. Despite their comparative advantage on the shot, they’re relatively conservative with it. Only 23.9% of their shots were threes, roughly the middle of the pack. The Warriors shoot so well from behind the arc likely because they are relatively conservative, but they likely have room to take more without taking a dramatic hit in their efficiency. In the first round, they dramatically increased the percentage of threes taken (from 23.9% of shots to 30.1%) and saw only a 0.2% drop in their conversion rate (from 40.3% to 40.1%). The Spurs, incidentally, decreased their percentage of threes taken in the playoffs from 26.4% (more than the Warriors’ regular season mark) to 20.2% — a point that will become significant below.

I would have to believe that us taking more 3's would coincide with Lee's absence, or possibly because the nuggets are so awful defending it, maybe a combination. But I would think it would be more of the former because the attempts increased not really our percentage. Us taking more 3's is better for the team because we're so good at it. Add another point to why we may possibly be better without Lee, but we may also get punished inside for going small. I can't wait for this game to watch what unfolds.

[TaylorMonkey]

reading Adam Lauridsen's piece on how to beat the spurs, he had a point of shooting the three:

Shoot the three, early and often — It’s the Warriors’ best shot, for two reasons. First, they’re great at it, connecting at a league-leading 40.3% during the regular season. Despite their comparative advantage on the shot, they’re relatively conservative with it. Only 23.9% of their shots were threes, roughly the middle of the pack. The Warriors shoot so well from behind the arc likely because they are relatively conservative, but they likely have room to take more without taking a dramatic hit in their efficiency. In the first round, they dramatically increased the percentage of threes taken (from 23.9% of shots to 30.1%) and saw only a 0.2% drop in their conversion rate (from 40.3% to 40.1%). The Spurs, incidentally, decreased their percentage of threes taken in the playoffs from 26.4% (more than the Warriors’ regular season mark) to 20.2% — a point that will become significant below.

I would have to believe that us taking more 3's would coincide with Lee's absence, or possibly because the nuggets are so awful defending it, maybe a combination. But I would think it would be more of the former because the attempts increased not really our percentage. Us taking more 3's is better for the team because we're so good at it. Add another point to why we may possibly be better without Lee, but we may also get punished inside for going small. I can't wait for this game to watch what unfolds.

More likely because Denver isn't good at defending the three-- and when all their attention is on Steph, it leaves more opportunities for our other guys. Note how open Green and Barnes tend to be, and the fact that both of them are getting Lee's minutes. So I guess you can say it's a combination of both and us taking advantage of their weakness by a fortunate accident.

We take threes in the flow of the game. We don't really chuck, which is why our percentage is so high. We could run more plays for open threes I suppose but that seems like our first option as is.

[Onus]

yea i would guess the increased attempts came from Barnes and Green being wide open from 3, which they played a lot of Lee's minutes. I don't think we forced more 3s but they were taken within the flow of the offense. So a consequence of not having lee was that we shoot more 3s, which isn't a bad thing. I guess it depends on who's taking the 3s, or who our stretch 4 is.

[floppymoose]

So I've been trying to find a way to get at the data people are asking for above. basketball-reference doesn't let me slice it and dice it quite that way, but I can get other on/off data from nbawowy which is as good or better, and I can do that against arbitrary sets of opponent teams. So I thought about what teams I considered tough teams for the Warriors. Here is my list (season series record in parens):

Bulls (0-2),
Clippers (3-1),
Grizzlies (0-3),
Heat (1-1),
Jazz (1-2),
Knicks (1-1),
Lakers (1-3),
Nuggets (1-3),
Pacers (1-1),
Rockets (1-3),
Spurs (2-2*),
Thunder (1-3)

(I realize the Rockets may be a controversial choice so I also ran the numbers without them. It doesn't change the results enough to matter.)

I know we won the season series against the Clips, but I included them because they were a good team and I think David did well against them and I didn't want to punish him by excluding them.

Here is how the Warriors did against those teams by three measures:
1) Warriors points per 100 possessions
2) Opponent points per 100 possessions
3) Warriors total rebound % against opponent

Each of those values is presented with Lee on, and with Lee off. Then after that I do the same with Curry just to give our other big stud the same treatment we are giving Lee. The results:

Code: Select all

Lee On   (1373 minutes total)
102.4   Warriors points per 100 possessions
108.0   Opponent points per 100 possessions
49.6%   Warriors total rebound % against opponent


Code: Select all

Lee Off   (759 minutes total)
108.1   Warriors points per 100 possessions
107.2   Opponent points per 100 possessions
51.5%   Warriors total rebound % against opponent


Code: Select all

Curry On   (1628 minutes total)
106.1   Warriors points per 100 possessions
108.3   Opponent points per 100 possessions
50.2%   Warriors total rebound % against opponent


Code: Select all

Curry Off   (503 minutes total)
98.9    Warriors points per 100 possessions
105.9   Opponent points per 100 possessions
50.1%   Warriors total rebound % against opponent


The bottom line against these opponents:

Lee vs no Lee:
-5.7 Warriors points per 100 possessions
+0.8 Opponent points per 100 possessions
-1.9% Warriors total rebound % against opponent

Curry vs no Curry:
+7.2 Warriors points per 100 possessions
+2.4 Opponent points per 100 possessions
+0.1% Warriors total rebound % against opponent

Net points per 100 possessions:
Lee: -6.5
Curry +4.8

Conclusion: Lee's game does not translate to the big dance. Curry's does. We need to ditch Lee before we are paying 15 million a year for a guy who can help us get to he playoffs but can't really help us when we are there. We should aim higher than that.

[Onus]

Wow more damning evidence against Lee. He doesn't have a positive contribution against playoff/good teams. I highly doubt if you added the missing playoff teams, the number would change drastically.

[TaylorMonkey]

Aren't on-off splits more a measure of the differential between a player and the lineups he plays against vs his backup and the lineups he plays against?

Landry is basically a mini-Lee so wouldn't Lee's splits tend to look worse than if his backup was crap? We also have one of the stronger benches and our scrub team is actually pretty decent except when Bazemore is out there and learning on the job.

I'm curious what these stats are like for the rest of our starters and Jack.