Draymond Green discussion...and "californiadude" blackmail.

[Kuya]

in situations like tonight against the Rockets, we won by moving Draymond Green to the 5 and playing really small.

This guy's versality is ELITE, pay the man pay the man.

[Ab12]

So Draymond received a flop warning for tripping over hardens foot while going back for the ball. Joke.

[Twinkie defense]

Talk about your small ball lineups! What was it, Steph/Klay/Iggy/Barnes/Draymond? And they were tearing it up. That was a great matchup against Houston missing Dwight... dunno if I want to put Draymond out there against Dwight though!

Drummond had a PER of 21.6 as a rookie and Festus 9.7. Drummond would have thrived in Festus' role and that's pretty obvious.

PER is a stupid measure that rewards people for chucking and ignores defense.

I wouldn't say that Ezili is better, will be better, or would have been/will be a better fit for the Warriors. For me the question - which seems to have been taken for granted by many - is did the Warriors make a mistake in drafting Barnes over Drummond. I think that is far from clear; Drummond got an invite to Team USA (which is great) and in particular has been putting up very good rebounding numbers, but I don't know what he has shown that says he will be a star. Right now I think Draymond is better than Drummond... and the argument could be made that this season Barnes is better than Drummond, and that only the future will tell what becomes of these guys longer term.

[turk3d]

Talk about your small ball lineups! What was it, Steph/Klay/Iggy/Barnes/Draymond? And they were tearing it up. That was a great matchup against Houston missing Dwight... dunno if I want to put Draymond out there against Dwight though!

Drummond had a PER of 21.6 as a rookie and Festus 9.7. Drummond would have thrived in Festus' role and that's pretty obvious.

PER is a stupid measure that rewards people for chucking and ignores defense.

I wouldn't say that Ezili is better, will be better, or would have been/will be a better fit for the Warriors. For me the question - which seems to have been taken for granted by many - is did the Warriors make a mistake in drafting Barnes over Drummond. I think that is far from clear; Drummond got an invite to Team USA (which is great) and in particular has been putting up very good rebounding numbers, but I don't know what he has shown that says he will be a star. Right now I think Draymond is better than Drummond... and the argument could be made that this season Barnes is better than Drummond, and that only the future will tell what becomes of these guys longer term.

Very well said, Twinkie.

[Mikayal]

Iggy was benched I believe it was Shaun/Steph/Klay/Barnes/Draymond ^

[oaktownwarriors87]

Drummond had a PER of 21.6 as a rookie and Festus 9.7. Drummond would have thrived in Festus' role and that's pretty obvious.

PER is a stupid measure that rewards people for chucking and ignores defense.

PER is the opposite, I have no idea where you're getting that from. It favors players that rebound and that are highly efficient on offense. That's why over half of the top players are PF's and C's.

Either way which style the stats favors is irrelevant because they play the same position and style. It's just a fact that Drummond is twice as productive, much more efficient, much more athletic, and younger. To argue that Ezeli is or was anywhere close to Drummond as a player is idiotic.

[Onus]

I can't believe homers sometimes ... really arguing Festus Ezeli over Andre Drummond.

Drummond can catch a basketball

[East Bay Sports]

So Draymond received a flop warning for tripping over hardens foot while going back for the ball. Joke.

Yea, total BS. The league can stick it

[East Bay Sports]

Iggy was benched I believe it was Shaun/Steph/Klay/Barnes/Draymond ^

Yep, this lineup was money. Livingston being in the close out lineups is likely to become a regular occurrence I think. He does so many things well, and allows for the Splash bros to play off the ball. Defenses having to deal with both of those guys running around while a playmaker like LIvingston is at the helm is frightening for opposing teams. Livingston's offense in the mid range/post is really coming along as well. I think those 3 + Draymond and either Mo or Bogut, depending on the night, is going to be the lineup we close with in close games more often than not.

[Twinkie defense]

Drummond had a PER of 21.6 as a rookie and Festus 9.7. Drummond would have thrived in Festus' role and that's pretty obvious.

PER is a stupid measure that rewards people for chucking and ignores defense.

PER is the opposite, I have no idea where you're getting that from. It favors players that rebound and that are highly efficient on offense. That's why over half of the top players are PF's and C's.

I don't have time right now to get into a discussion but let me just refer you to the PER Wikipedia page :

PER largely measures offensive performance. Hollinger freely admits that two of the defensive statistics it incorporates—blocks and steals (which was not tracked as an official stat until 1973)—can produce a distorted picture of a player's value and that PER is not a reliable measure of a player's defensive acumen. For example, Bruce Bowen, widely regarded as one of the best defenders in the NBA (at least through the 2006–07 season), has routinely posted single-digit PERs.

"Hollinger argues that each two point field goal made is worth about 1.65 points. A three point field goal made is worth 2.65 points. A missed field goal, though, costs a team 0.72 points. Given these values, with a bit of math we can show that a player will break even on his two point field goal attempts if he hits on 30.4% of these shots. On three pointers the break-even point is 21.4%. If a player exceeds these thresholds, and virtually every NBA player does so with respect to two-point shots, the more he shoots the higher his value in PERs. So a player can be an inefficient scorer and simply inflate his value by taking a large number of shots."

[Twinkie defense]

I can't believe homers sometimes ... really arguing Festus Ezeli over Andre Drummond.

Whose arguing that? Turk said Ezeli might have been a better fit for the Warriors than Drummond. And I said that discussion is kind of beside the point, the question is, is Drummond really all that, Green is better, and one can argue that Barnes is better.

[Mylie10]

I can't believe homers sometimes ... really arguing Festus Ezeli over Andre Drummond.

Whose arguing that? Turk said Ezeli might have been a better fit for the Warriors than Drummond. And I said that discussion is kind of beside the point, the question is, is Drummond really all that, Green is better, and one can argue that Barnes is better.

I agree with you on per....I prefer to just add up points, rebounds, assists, steals, and blocks versus minutes played to gauge production in a given game.

But guys like Iguodala, Bowen, and others who do primarily the dirty work will get way undervalued with those type of production stats.

As for Drummond versus Ezeli...Onus is right.....and Drummond would have been big for us that first year. All he would have had to do was rebound, defend, and block shots. Ezeli started a bunch of games, but he often wasn't heard from again after the first quarter or so...the team was winning with Lee and Landry as the main bigs.

Also since we had made the Bogut trade, it kind of knocked out the idea of taking Drummond. If Drummonds short career at UCONN would have been off the charts, then Drummond would have gone much higher than seven. Having Bogut, redirected the Warriors needs. I know bpa, but that'd hindsight.

[turk3d]

Also since we had made the Bogut trade, it kind of knocked out the idea of taking Drummond. If Drummonds short career at UCONN would have been off the charts, then Drummond would have gone much higher than seven. Having Bogut, redirected the Warriors needs. I know bpa, but that'd hindsight.

I agree with the above Myiie, and that was my point. Once we got Bogut, I see very little opportunity for Drummond to get minutes (who knew that Bogut was going to go down to injury, at least the was that he wasn't) and I never said I thought that Ezeli was better than Drummond, what I said that under the circumstances, he was a better fit and probably more NBA ready which he proved to be on a playoff bound team.

Even on that weak Dtroit team, Drummond average < 22 mpg (which happens to be what he's averaged his entire NBA career). And that's without filling our need for a SF (this was prior to Iggy's acquisition) which Barnes filled and helped us during the playoffs. People just love those dead horse around here.

[Twinkie defense]

I'm really glad we snatched Festus at the end of the first round, it's quite a find to get a productive center at that spot. It just doesn't relate to Drummond much - unless, let's say the Warriors felt they could get a usable center late in the 1st, and usable center plus starting SF > decent center without the SF I don't grant them that much foresight, but really the argument is Drummond or Barnes? And as much as people have thought that was a closed case IDK if it is that easy.

guys like Iguodala, Bowen, and others who do primarily the dirty work will get way undervalued with those type of production stats.

Boxscore-derived metrics (including plus/minus) are always going to have their problems, especially on the defensive end. Thankfully we are coming upon a "big data" revolution where high-speed cameras tracking every player, every move on the floor, at all times, can help address that. Imagine a world when a player gets credit for a good screen that gives his teammate a wide open shot, or for a rotation that makes the opponent take a tough shot. Maybe then we will more value the players who do the incredibly valuable dirty work, and not just the 30ppg game guys.

[Onus]

Festus is not and will never be a better fit for any team than Drummond. Festus is older, more raw, and has less years of experience. He started playing basketball his senior year in HS for an AAU team not his HS team.

He was not more ready than Drummond because he was in college for 5 years, he had only played basketball for 5 years. We didn't ask our centers to do much of anything that year anyway, rebound, block shots, take up space, get offensive rebounds all things Drummond does better than Festus. And yes we should've known that Bogut was an injury risk because that was the only reason he was traded to us.

You could argue Barnes is having a better season, but you'd probably lose an argument as to who is a better player. Green is definitely a more impactful player but I'm not sure how he fits into this argument, he was a 2nd rd pick.

[oaktownwarriors87]

PER is a stupid measure that rewards people for chucking and ignores defense.

PER is the opposite, I have no idea where you're getting that from. It favors players that rebound and that are highly efficient on offense. That's why over half of the top players are PF's and C's.

I don't have time right now to get into a discussion but let me just refer you to the PER Wikipedia page :

PER largely measures offensive performance. Hollinger freely admits that two of the defensive statistics it incorporates—blocks and steals (which was not tracked as an official stat until 1973)—can produce a distorted picture of a player's value and that PER is not a reliable measure of a player's defensive acumen. For example, Bruce Bowen, widely regarded as one of the best defenders in the NBA (at least through the 2006–07 season), has routinely posted single-digit PERs.

"Hollinger argues that each two point field goal made is worth about 1.65 points. A three point field goal made is worth 2.65 points. A missed field goal, though, costs a team 0.72 points. Given these values, with a bit of math we can show that a player will break even on his two point field goal attempts if he hits on 30.4% of these shots. On three pointers the break-even point is 21.4%. If a player exceeds these thresholds, and virtually every NBA player does so with respect to two-point shots, the more he shoots the higher his value in PERs. So a player can be an inefficient scorer and simply inflate his value by taking a large number of shots."

And if you continue reading the same article:

Berri leads off with a huge misunderstanding of PER—that the credits and debits it gives for making and missing shots equate to a “break-even” shooting mark of 30.4% on 2-point shots. He made this assumption because he forgot that PER is calibrated against the rest of the league at the end of the formula.

Actually, if we took a player that was completely average in every other respect for the 2006–07 season—rebounds, free throws, assists, turnovers, etc.—and gave him a league-average rate of shots, and all of them were 2-pointers, and he shot 30.4%, he'd end up with a PER of 7.18. As long-time PER fans know, that would make him considerably worse than nearly every player in the league.

To end up with a league-average PER of 15.00, the actual break-even mark in this case is 48.5%, which is exactly what the league average is on 2-point shots this season.

If you look at the top 100 PER leaders it always has more big men (PF/C) than perimeter players (PG/SG/SF) despite there being 50% more perimeter players in the NBA. Most argue that PER heavily favors rebounders and high % shooters.

But all this means nothing when you argue Festus vs Drummond because they played the same position, the same styles, and the same roles.

Drummond doesn't have a higher PER because he took twice as many shots. It's because he shot 61% from the floor while Festus shto 44%. It's because he scored 14 points per 36 minutes while Festus score 6. It's because he grabbed 13 rebounds per 36 minutes while fetus grabbed 10. It's because per 36 minutes he averaged more assist and less turnovers.

He's a better player and more productive. End of story.

[Mylie10]

I think Festus was a good value pick at thirty...I like him, even with his warts. Great size.

But Drummond is better and would have played some big role with Mark Jackson if we magically picked him at seven. Just because his minutes were X in Detroit tells you exactly nothing about how many minutes he would have played under Jackson. I think it would have been significant.

[Twinkie defense]

Oaktown, my arguments are PER sucks, Ezeli was a nice late-round pick, Draymond Green is better than Drummond, and it's not a settled matter that Barnes is better or worse than Drummond. Take those up if you want to but quit with the straw man argument about who is better, Drummond or Ezeli - no one is making that argument except you.

That said, neither Drummond or Ezeli is around to score points, that's not their role, and neither of them are particularly adept at doing it - Drummond is averaging 11.3 ppg this season, which is .1 ppg less than Bogut's career average and about what DeAndre Jordan put up last season. Defensive center scoring numbers.

These guys are there for their defensive abilities, and PER is a poor measure of defense. If you want to proclaim how great Drummond is I would definitely leave the PER aside.

[East Bay Sports]

Draymond looks like an All Star

[East Bay Sports]

http://espn.go.com/blog/golden-state-wa ... of-players