G23: Phoenix Suns at LA Lakers | Friday, December 9th, 9:30 PM, MST, ESPN

[NavLDO]

Definitely decapitation.

Nooo...are you saying what I think you're saying?? Is he now..."Warren"-stein!!!

[LukasBMW]

Great win. We needed this. I don't care if DAR was out. WE. NEEDED. THIS. WIN.

-Bledsoe played great
-Booker will be fine. Growing pains.
-I wish we had a guy who could get us points in the paint.
-Nice to sender Bender go to the rim for once.
-The Lakers are not as good as their record indicates.
-Can't get too excited over this win - It's a young team VS young team
-As many of you stated before, the Suns/Laker rivalry of the future will be epic!
-Brandon Knight shot almost 50% from the floor!!!!! ...but he was -19.
-Brandon Knight still sucks

So I guess the Suns are better than their 7-16 record ?

We have wins against good teams when we played them at full strength. We beat the Hawks twice, beat the Warriors, beat the Bulls, beat the Thunder and the Pelicans....all teams that were projected to be better than us and some are. But when you play hard in basketball you can beat anybody on any given night. We have 4 rotation players out no way we're going to compete at the same level we did when the season started.

You are a young team with a better coach and a better offensive. You played out of your minds at the start of the season and caught a few teams by surprise. Now...you are slowly coming back down to reality...the reality that you aren't quite ready for the playoffs. We sure aren't much better than you, but we sure aren't much worse either! See you at the end of the lottery. Thanks for playing.

[LukasBMW]

Can't be surprised that our D-league hall of famer (Knight) and D-league starting center (Len) played well against another team of D-league players.

[NavLDO]

Can't be surprised that our D-league hall of famer (Knight) and D-league starting center (Len) played well against another team of D-league players.

Yep. Has nothing to do with minutes played, rotations/line-ups, etc.

ATL - 75% shooting, 9 TRB, 2 BLKs in 23 MP
IND - 2 Blks in 16 MP last gm; Gm before 10/10 3 BLKs 71% FG% in 22 MP
DET - 16/14/3 STLs/1 BLK 70% FG%
POR - 18 pts/3 BLKs, 60% FG% in 21 MP

Then the "D-League" Teams, I suppose...

DEN - 10 TRB / 2 BLKs / 1 STL
ORL - 17/12 / 2 BLKs, 60% FG%
WSH - 11/10 / 3 BLKs , 60% FG%
PHI - 9/7 / 2 BLKs / 1 STL 57% FG%, 25 MP
BKN - 10/11 / 2 BLKs

But let's keep piling on, as sad as it might be, statistically, one of our best players on the team at age 23. Certainly better than Bledsoe, but let's be sure not to mention how he finally played a decent game against "D-League" competition--let's keep giving him a pass...but, but, but he's averaging 19 pts a game!! Forget that he's a PG and only averaging 5.2 APG AFTER last nights 9 Asst performance, and a 3PT% of 31.6, again, AFTER last night's 60% 3PT performance against 'D-League' competition.

Or how pitiful Tucker's been this year...or Booker (even if he has an excuse, he's still contributing more to losing than Len is). But nope--the Len hate continues despite him having his best season yet. I guess he's not improving fast enough...

...but instead, let's pay $64M over 4 seasons to an equivalent of Len's 'D-League' opponent last night, Mozgov, because we let him go instead of paying him and we stuck ourselves into a position requiring us to pay a starting C like 'Mozgov' $16M per. But wait! We have a 35 YO Chandler to lead us next year, and we'll draft a Center and develop him in 2 years like we id Len and...and...and...oh, that didn't happen and rarely does? But yeah, let's bank on that because we'll have a top 5 pick for sure and...and...oh, wait, Len was a top 5 pick?? Huh...hmmmm...conundrum...

[GMATCallahan]

Honestly I don't know what type of team we have yet. I usually use about 35 games to see what type of team we are. Before all the injuries set in we were on a pace for about close to 23 to 29 wins before the break. But we are also entering the toughest part of our schedule. After Sunday we only have 3 more home games the rest of this month, once we come back home for Christmas we have 12 home games to get ourselves back right.

I take your point to a certain extent, but barring major injuries to one of the top eight present seeds, the Lakers are certainly not going to be a playoff team—nor are the Suns. Now, will the Lakers (or Suns) be, say, a 35-win team, a 30-win team, or a 25-win team? Just how far back of the playoffs will they finish?

Those questions are the realistic ones to ask.

[GMATCallahan]

We're 7-16, last year the Blazers were 11-20 at Christmas and made it to the 2nd round in the play-offs. It's not that I think that we are gonna make a big run this year, but it's waaay too early to give up on the season. A lot of teams that are ahead of us look vulnerable.

Barring major injuries, I would say that the chances of any of the top eight present seeds in the West failing to make the playoffs are extremely slim. Of course, major injuries can always occur, but the only teams ahead of the Suns that look especially "vulnerable," in my opinion, are the other clubs presently in the lottery bracket: the Lakers, Kings, and Nuggets.

That said, I do not mind Phoenix trying to win games right now and playing the veterans—to an extent. I would like to see Chriss play more than 8 minutes, especially when he is starting, but we are only in early December, he and Bender are teenagers, and they look the part in more ways than one. Hopefully, by March and April, they will be playing more, but they do need to earn their minutes based on how they perform in practice.

Eventually, Chriss, Bender, and Ulis will need to see the court more, but the Suns may need to make a trade or two in order to facilitate those minutes and opportunities. Perhaps Knight and Tucker could be packaged for a late first-round pick; perhaps, with some more games like last night, Bledsoe could become one of the most coveted trade targets in the NBA—not that Phoenix should necessarily trade him, but the Suns need to shop him and see what is out there. Over his last 10 games, Bledsoe is averaging 22.8 points, 5.6 assists (granted, against 3.1 turnovers for a marginal 1.8:1.0 assists-to-turnover ratio), 5.9 rebounds, 2.1 steals, a .373 three-point field goal percentage in 5.1 attempts, an .875 free throw percentage in 5.6 attempts, and a .560 True Shooting Percentage. Actually, Bledsoe's True Shooting Percentage over his last 18 games is .571, a terrific figure for a guard with a major scoring volume. (Anything at .550 or above is quite good in my opinion—.530 and above for the playoffs.) For points of comparison, Isaiah Thomas' True Shooting Percentage this season is .573 (.572 for his career), whereas Brandon Knight's True Shooting Percentage this season is a dreadful .483 (.520 for his career).

None of that information means that Bledsoe is a good option to build an offense around, but for teams that would not need to build an offense around him yet need help at guard, he should be attractive. And if he is helping Phoenix win some games, his attractiveness should be even higher. So there is potentially a process at play where the Suns play veterans now, compete to win as much as possible, and then later reconfigure their priorities and allocation of minutes—possibly after a major trade or two.

[GMATCallahan]

Over his last 10 games, Bledsoe is averaging 22.8 points, 5.6 assists (granted, against 3.1 turnovers for a marginal 1.8:1.0 assists-to-turnover ratio), 5.9 rebounds, 2.1 steals, a .373 three-point field goal percentage in 5.1 attempts, an .875 free throw percentage in 5.6 attempts, and a .560 True Shooting Percentage. Actually, Bledsoe's True Shooting Percentage over his last 18 games is .571, a terrific figure for a guard with a major scoring volume. (Anything at .550 or above is quite good in my opinion—.530 and above for the playoffs.) For points of comparison, Isaiah Thomas' True Shooting Percentage this season is .573 (.572 for his career), whereas Brandon Knight's True Shooting Percentage this season is a dreadful .483 (.520 for his career).

... True Shooting Percentage (the best measure of scoring efficiency) leaders among point guards this season:

http://insider.espn.com/nba/hollinger/statistics/_/position/pg/sort/trueShootingPct

There are actually nineteen worse point guards than Knight in terms of scoring efficiency right now ...

Of course, one then needs to consider Knight's assists-to-turnover ratio, too.

[batsmasher]

*cough* and Book's TS% is 0.511 this season *cough*

[NavLDO]

Over his last 10 games, Bledsoe is averaging 22.8 points, 5.6 assists (granted, against 3.1 turnovers for a marginal 1.8:1.0 assists-to-turnover ratio), 5.9 rebounds, 2.1 steals, a .373 three-point field goal percentage in 5.1 attempts, an .875 free throw percentage in 5.6 attempts, and a .560 True Shooting Percentage. Actually, Bledsoe's True Shooting Percentage over his last 18 games is .571, a terrific figure for a guard with a major scoring volume. (Anything at .550 or above is quite good in my opinion—.530 and above for the playoffs.) For points of comparison, Isaiah Thomas' True Shooting Percentage this season is .573 (.572 for his career), whereas Brandon Knight's True Shooting Percentage this season is a dreadful .483 (.520 for his career).

... True Shooting Percentage (the best measure of scoring efficiency) leaders among point guards this season:

http://insider.espn.com/nba/hollinger/statistics/_/position/pg/sort/trueShootingPct

There are actually nineteen worse point guards than Knight in terms of scoring efficiency right now ...

Of course, one then needs to consider Knight's assists-to-turnover ratio, too.

I doubt many teams look to Bledsoe's last 10 games to determine whether he's worth trading for; their doing to look at a larger sample than that that, IMO. And then if you look at his 50th place (last on the 1st pg) in Assts, and 40th in TOVs, that's going to give teams pause--even with his 10th ranked EWA and VA.

Just for fun, I was looking at Len's last 10 games with the most minutes (22+) and his stats were fairly impressive: over 60% shooting, almost 11 TRBs and PTs, and 2.6 BLKs, and that was averaging something like just over 31 MPG. (And BTW, after looking at the Hollinger link and how Len stacks up against other Centers from that draft, he's doing just fine, and compares favorably to most--Adams (PER, TRB, USG, BLKs, TOVs, Assts), Olynyk (TRB, PER, BLKs, FG%) , Plumlee (TRBs, BLKs, TS%), Zeller (USG, FT, TRB, BLKs)--so still not getting the hate, especially considering the overall inconsistency of his MPG...16 MPG one night, 34 MPG the next...

Anyway, I think teams would be more apt to look at something like that, like how a certain player performed under certain conditions, or certain statistics, over just flat-out the last 10 games, but I don't know that for a fact or anything.

But overall, I agree. If we can find a suitor for Bledsoe, I'd be all over it, since I don't believe he's our PG of the future. Let's face it; he's 8 years older than Chriss and Bender. And I'm not even sure he's our best fit right now. We need a PG who feeds the ball, not dominates it. Even if Bledsoe IS a good PG, I don't think he's a good PG for the development of our youth, over all.

[lilfishi22]

Over his last 10 games, Bledsoe is averaging 22.8 points, 5.6 assists (granted, against 3.1 turnovers for a marginal 1.8:1.0 assists-to-turnover ratio), 5.9 rebounds, 2.1 steals, a .373 three-point field goal percentage in 5.1 attempts, an .875 free throw percentage in 5.6 attempts, and a .560 True Shooting Percentage. Actually, Bledsoe's True Shooting Percentage over his last 18 games is .571, a terrific figure for a guard with a major scoring volume. (Anything at .550 or above is quite good in my opinion—.530 and above for the playoffs.) For points of comparison, Isaiah Thomas' True Shooting Percentage this season is .573 (.572 for his career), whereas Brandon Knight's True Shooting Percentage this season is a dreadful .483 (.520 for his career).

... True Shooting Percentage (the best measure of scoring efficiency) leaders among point guards this season:

http://insider.espn.com/nba/hollinger/statistics/_/position/pg/sort/trueShootingPct

There are actually nineteen worse point guards than Knight in terms of scoring efficiency right now ...

Of course, one then needs to consider Knight's assists-to-turnover ratio, too.

I doubt many teams look to Bledsoe's last 10 games to determine whether he's worth trading for; their doing to look at a larger sample than that that, IMO. And then if you look at his 50th place (last on the 1st pg) in Assts, and 40th in TOVs, that's going to give teams pause--even with his 10th ranked EWA and VA.

Just for fun, I was looking at Len's last 10 games with the most minutes (22+) and his stats were fairly impressive: over 60% shooting, almost 11 TRBs and PTs, and 2.6 BLKs, and that was averaging something like just over 31 MPG. (And BTW, after looking at the Hollinger link and how Len stacks up against other Centers from that draft, he's doing just fine, and compares favorably to most--Adams (PER, TRB, USG, BLKs, TOVs, Assts), Olynyk (TRB, PER, BLKs, FG%) , Plumlee (TRBs, BLKs, TS%), Zeller (USG, FT, TRB, BLKs)--so still not getting the hate, especially considering the overall inconsistency of his MPG...16 MPG one night, 34 MPG the next...

Anyway, I think teams would be more apt to look at something like that, like how a certain player performed under certain conditions, or certain statistics, over just flat-out the last 10 games, but I don't know that for a fact or anything.

But overall, I agree. If we can find a suitor for Bledsoe, I'd be all over it, since I don't believe he's our PG of the future. Let's face it; he's 8 years older than Chriss and Bender. And I'm not even sure he's our best fit right now. We need a PG who feeds the ball, not dominates it. Even if Bledsoe IS a good PG, I don't think he's a good PG for the development of our youth, over all.

I've made a similar comment in another thread regarding Len's contribution as a starter and I agree with you 100%. It's not blow it out of the water impressive but he has been considerably more consistent in contribution. I think he needs to start. As good as Chandler has been for us, I think Len should be our starter in order to get more experience and hopefully improve on his above average contribution as a starter. Aside from his admittedly very impressive last game against LA (14/14/5bks 60fg%), he's been subpar as the first big off the bench (8.4/6.5 .43fg%). As a starter, he's a fairly solid 10/10 and close to .57fg%. Unless the FO's plan is to "hide" him so he gets a lower offer in RFA, then I see no reason why we shouldn't start Len.

I also have a hard time seeing Bledsoe with us long term. If there was ever a time to move him, it would be this season or the next. With Knight's role scaled back and Booker's overall usage coming down slightly too, there's really no competition for Bledsoe and it's his time to shine. And arguably, he has come through more than he hasn't, especially in his last 10 games as GMAT mentioned. Bledsoe is a very good player but I don't believe he's our PG of the future either. If we keep him, I'm hoping it's because we have plans to bring Cousins. If we bring in Cousins, we essentially shift our competitive window forward, in which case, he can be our PG of now with TJ or Booker playing a supporting role rather than be our star.

Edit: Just edited my post because I think I was a bit too aggressive with the Beldsoe trade time line. I think it should read this season or the next mainly because he'll still be under contract for another two seasons after this one and he should still be solid. Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting we need to trade Bledsoe today or tomorrow because I don't know what options there are out there and I'm sort of still holding out for a Cousins trade which would require Bledsoe to be here to work.

[GMATCallahan]

I doubt many teams look to Bledsoe's last 10 games to determine whether he's worth trading for; their doing to look at a larger sample than that that, IMO. And then if you look at his 50th place (last on the 1st pg) in Assts, and 40th in TOVs, that's going to give teams pause--even with his 10th ranked EWA and VA.

Just for fun, I was looking at Len's last 10 games with the most minutes (22+) and his stats were fairly impressive: over 60% shooting, almost 11 TRBs and PTs, and 2.6 BLKs, and that was averaging something like just over 31 MPG. (And BTW, after looking at the Hollinger link and how Len stacks up against other Centers from that draft, he's doing just fine, and compares favorably to most--Adams (PER, TRB, USG, BLKs, TOVs, Assts), Olynyk (TRB, PER, BLKs, FG%) , Plumlee (TRBs, BLKs, TS%), Zeller (USG, FT, TRB, BLKs)--so still not getting the hate, especially considering the overall inconsistency of his MPG...16 MPG one night, 34 MPG the next...

Anyway, I think teams would be more apt to look at something like that, like how a certain player performed under certain conditions, or certain statistics, over just flat-out the last 10 games, but I don't know that for a fact or anything.

But overall, I agree. If we can find a suitor for Bledsoe, I'd be all over it, since I don't believe he's our PG of the future. Let's face it; he's 8 years older than Chriss and Bender. And I'm not even sure he's our best fit right now. We need a PG who feeds the ball, not dominates it. Even if Bledsoe IS a good PG, I don't think he's a good PG for the development of our youth, over all.

... sure, but a larger sample also means that teams are going to examine Bledsoe through the prism of a multiyear sample. Part of my point (and I never made it directly in that post) was that Bledsoe, of course, is coming off season-ending knee surgery, so a slow start was unsurprising. Thus a more recent sample could be more relevant in his case, because if he has been playing better lately, other teams may interpret his latest 10-game streak (or what have you) as a sign that he is rounding back into pre-surgery form. And indeed, Bledsoe's numbers from the last 10 games are reminiscent of his statistical performance last year, when people around the league seemed to hold him in fairly high esteem (even if you and I know that he was still far from optimal as a point guard).

[NavLDO]

... True Shooting Percentage (the best measure of scoring efficiency) leaders among point guards this season:

http://insider.espn.com/nba/hollinger/statistics/_/position/pg/sort/trueShootingPct

There are actually nineteen worse point guards than Knight in terms of scoring efficiency right now ...

Of course, one then needs to consider Knight's assists-to-turnover ratio, too.

I doubt many teams look to Bledsoe's last 10 games to determine whether he's worth trading for; their doing to look at a larger sample than that that, IMO. And then if you look at his 50th place (last on the 1st pg) in Assts, and 40th in TOVs, that's going to give teams pause--even with his 10th ranked EWA and VA.

Just for fun, I was looking at Len's last 10 games with the most minutes (22+) and his stats were fairly impressive: over 60% shooting, almost 11 TRBs and PTs, and 2.6 BLKs, and that was averaging something like just over 31 MPG. (And BTW, after looking at the Hollinger link and how Len stacks up against other Centers from that draft, he's doing just fine, and compares favorably to most--Adams (PER, TRB, USG, BLKs, TOVs, Assts), Olynyk (TRB, PER, BLKs, FG%) , Plumlee (TRBs, BLKs, TS%), Zeller (USG, FT, TRB, BLKs)--so still not getting the hate, especially considering the overall inconsistency of his MPG...16 MPG one night, 34 MPG the next...

Anyway, I think teams would be more apt to look at something like that, like how a certain player performed under certain conditions, or certain statistics, over just flat-out the last 10 games, but I don't know that for a fact or anything.

But overall, I agree. If we can find a suitor for Bledsoe, I'd be all over it, since I don't believe he's our PG of the future. Let's face it; he's 8 years older than Chriss and Bender. And I'm not even sure he's our best fit right now. We need a PG who feeds the ball, not dominates it. Even if Bledsoe IS a good PG, I don't think he's a good PG for the development of our youth, over all.

I've made a similar comment in another thread regarding Len's contribution as a starter and I agree with you 100%. It's not blow it out of the water impressive but he has been considerably more consistent in contribution. I think he needs to start. As good as Chandler has been for us, I think Len should be our starter in order to get more experience and hopefully improve on his above average contribution as a starter. Aside from his admittedly very impressive last game against LA (14/14/5bks 60fg%), he's been subpar as the first big off the bench (8.4/6.5 .43fg%). As a starter, he's a fairly solid 10/10 and close to .57fg%. Unless the FO's plan is to "hide" him so he gets a lower offer in RFA, then I see no reason why we shouldn't start Len.

I also have a hard time seeing Bledsoe with us long term. If there was ever a time to move him, it would be this season or the next. With Knight's role scaled back and Booker's overall usage coming down slightly too, there's really no competition for Bledsoe and it's his time to shine. And arguably, he has come through more than he hasn't, especially in his last 10 games as GMAT mentioned. Bledsoe is a very good player but I don't believe he's our PG of the future either. If we keep him, I'm hoping it's because we have plans to bring Cousins. If we bring in Cousins, we essentially shift our competitive window forward, in which case, he can be our PG of now with TJ or Booker playing a supporting role rather than be our star.

Edit: Just edited my post because I think I was a bit too aggressive with the Beldsoe trade time line. I think it should read this season or the next mainly because he'll still be under contract for another two seasons after this one and he should still be solid. Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting we need to trade Bledsoe today or tomorrow because I don't know what options there are out there and I'm sort of still holding out for a Cousins trade which would require Bledsoe to be here to work.

Yes, yes, yes, yes, and...um, oh yeah, YES!! Wholeheartedly agree, and if the FO wants to keep Len 'down' a bit to keep his suitors' offers 'down', then I'm ok with it, so long as he still gets to start 25-30 games this season and avg about 25 MPG, to give him the burn he needs to get better. I know many are unhappy with Watson's coaching, but I'm ok with how he's managing Len, overall...though I'd like a bit more consistency from game to game in min. played. He needs no less than that 22 or so MPG I was mentioning. I believe that's his cutoff point, IMO. But Len has improved, overall, thus season from last season; especially when he gets those minutes in the mid-20s and up.

[GMATCallahan]

I've made a similar comment in another thread regarding Len's contribution as a starter and I agree with you 100%. It's not blow it out of the water impressive but he has been considerably more consistent in contribution. I think he needs to start. As good as Chandler has been for us, I think Len should be our starter in order to get more experience and hopefully improve on his above average contribution as a starter. Aside from his admittedly very impressive last game against LA (14/14/5bks 60fg%), he's been subpar as the first big off the bench (8.4/6.5 .43fg%). As a starter, he's a fairly solid 10/10 and close to .57fg%. Unless the FO's plan is to "hide" him so he gets a lower offer in RFA, then I see no reason why we shouldn't start Len.

Part of the reason why the Suns may be starting Chandler is that as a thirty-something veteran with a history of injuries, starting may be easier on his body, because it allows him to begin playing when he is warm and loose (after warm-ups), rather than sitting on the bench and checking into the game cold. We saw this sort of dynamic at play with a thirty-six-year old Grant Hill in '08-'09. In 14 games off the bench (playing behind Matt Barnes under head coach Terry Porter), Hill shot .425 from the field, .167 on threes, and .778 from the free throw line for a terrible .474 True Shooting Percentage. But in 68 starts, Hill shot .536 from the field, .344 on threes, and .811 from the free throw line for an excellent .598 True Shooting Percentage.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/h/hillgr01/splits/2009

Of course, there could have been other reasons for the statistical difference beyond simply starting the game while warmed up instead of cold (for instance, more total minutes as a starter and, perhaps, a greater percentage of his minutes with Steve Nash). Yet if Hill had started all 82 games, the Suns may have made the playoffs that year.

Another example in that vein is Kevin Johnson during the '97-'98 season. As I recently noted in another post, in his 12 starts that season, Johnson averaged 16.3 points, 6.2 assists, and a .600 True Shooting Percentage—no player in the NBA averaged at least 16.0/6.0/.600 that season, and no one would do so again until Steve Nash in '01-'02. (The only player to reach each of those marks in '96-'97 was Kevin Johnson; the only two players to do so in '95-'96 were Kevin Johnson and Anfernee Hardaway.) But in 38 games off the bench in '97-'98, K.J. posted a modest .528 True Shooting Percentage.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/j/johnske02/splits/1998

On February 26, 1998, Johnson shot a career-worst 0-9 from the field in 20 minutes off the bench at Utah; in Phoenix's next game, the next night at the Clippers, he received the only "DNP-CD" of his career. Asked thereafter about his "struggles" (never mind the fact that prior to the 0-9, K.J.'s field goal percentage for the year had been .494, identical to his career mark entering the season despite coming off the bench for his last 15 appearances), he noted that one of his difficulties had been entering games cold rather than warmed up and trying to make that adjustment.

But in his last 7 starts of that season, including the playoff opener (the only playoff game that he started that year), Johnson shot .571 from the field (52-91, 13.0 FGA per contest) and .860 from the free throw line (37-43, 6.1 FTA per contest) for a .641 True Shooting Percentage. In those last 7 starts (two in November, four in March, and the playoff opener in late April), K.J. converted at least half his field goal attempts six times, scored at least 18 points six times, sank at least 6 free throws four times, and recorded at least 6 assists five times, averaging 20.1 points and 7.0 assists. But after the first eight games of that season, Johnson usually came off the bench.

Of course, Tyson Chandler is not exactly on the Hall of Fame-caliber offensive level of Grant Hill or Kevin Johnson; when healthy, those two players ranked among the five or ten greatest ever at their respective positions, whereas Chandler's offense is basically forgettable. And last season, his overall performance level did not seem to drop off in his six appearances off the bench. But starting, as opposed to coming off the bench cold, may be in the best interests of an injury-prone veteran. Additionally, Watson may want to respect Chandler's seniority.

Granted, there are valid arguments against Chandler starting. As you noted, Alex Len has been far more effective, overall, as a starter this season. (Granted, Len shot a higher field goal percentage when coming off the bench, as opposed to starting, in each of the previous two seasons, and his career field goal percentage is still slightly greater off the bench compared to a starting role, so some of what we are seeing now may just be a matter of a small sample size.) Also, if Chandler comes off the bench, he could play more in the fourth quarter—when his experience would be most useful—in games where the Suns possess a legitimate chance to win.

But perhaps the greatest reason to start Chandler is to showcase him for a potential trade. If he can prove that he is healthy and productive, as has been the case thus far this year, then he might still profile as a difference-maker on an otherwise respectable team that needs help at center.

[bwgood77]

Spoiler:

I've made a similar comment in another thread regarding Len's contribution as a starter and I agree with you 100%. It's not blow it out of the water impressive but he has been considerably more consistent in contribution. I think he needs to start. As good as Chandler has been for us, I think Len should be our starter in order to get more experience and hopefully improve on his above average contribution as a starter. Aside from his admittedly very impressive last game against LA (14/14/5bks 60fg%), he's been subpar as the first big off the bench (8.4/6.5 .43fg%). As a starter, he's a fairly solid 10/10 and close to .57fg%. Unless the FO's plan is to "hide" him so he gets a lower offer in RFA, then I see no reason why we shouldn't start Len.

Part of the reason why the Suns may be starting Chandler is that as a thirty-something veteran with a history of injuries, starting may be easier on his body, because it allows him to begin playing when he is warm and loose (after warm-ups), rather than sitting on the bench and checking into the game cold. We saw this sort of dynamic at play with a thirty-six-year old Grant Hill in '08-'09. In 14 games off the bench (playing behind Matt Barnes under head coach Terry Porter), Hill shot .425 from the field, .167 on threes, and .778 from the free throw line for a terrible .474 True Shooting Percentage. But in 68 starts, Hill shot .536 from the field, .344 on threes, and .811 from the free throw line for an excellent .598 True Shooting Percentage.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/h/hillgr01/splits/2009

Of course, there could have been other reasons for the statistical difference beyond simply starting the game while warmed up instead of cold (for instance, more total minutes as a starter and, perhaps, a greater percentage of his minutes with Steve Nash). Yet if Hill had started all 82 games, the Suns may have made the playoffs that year.

Another example in that vein is Kevin Johnson during the '97-'98 season. As I recently noted in another post, in his 12 starts that season, Johnson averaged 16.3 points, 6.2 assists, and a .600 True Shooting Percentage—no player in the NBA averaged at least 16.0/6.0/.600 that season, and no one would do so again until Steve Nash in '01-'02. (The only player to reach each of those marks in '96-'97 was Kevin Johnson; the only two players to do so in '95-'96 were Kevin Johnson and Anfernee Hardaway.) But in 38 games off the bench in '97-'98, K.J. posted a modest .528 True Shooting Percentage.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/j/johnske02/splits/1998

On February 26, 1998, Johnson shot a career-worst 0-9 from the field in 20 minutes off the bench at Utah; in Phoenix's next game, the next night at the Clippers, he received the only "DNP-CD" of his career. Asked thereafter about his "struggles" (never mind the fact that prior to the 0-9, K.J.'s field goal percentage for the year had been .494, identical to his career mark entering the season despite coming off the bench for his last 15 appearances), he noted that one of his difficulties had been entering games cold rather than warmed up and trying to make that adjustment.

But in his last 7 starts of that season, including the playoff opener (the only playoff game that he started that year), Johnson shot .571 from the field (52-91, 13.0 FGA per contest) and .860 from the free throw line (37-43, 6.1 FTA per contest) for a .641 True Shooting Percentage. In those last 7 starts (two in November, four in March, and the playoff opener in late April), K.J. converted at least half his field goal attempts six times, scored at least 18 points six times, sank at least 6 free throws four times, and recorded at least 6 assists five times, averaging 20.1 points and 7.0 assists. But after the first eight games of that season, Johnson usually came off the bench.

Of course, Tyson Chandler is not exactly on the Hall of Fame-caliber offensive level of Grant Hill or Kevin Johnson; when healthy, those two players ranked among the five or ten greatest ever at their respective positions, whereas Chandler's offense is basically forgettable. And last season, his overall performance level did not seem to drop off in his six appearances off the bench. But starting, as opposed to coming off the bench cold, may be in the best interests of an injury-prone veteran. Additionally, Watson may want to respect Chandler's seniority.

Granted, there are valid arguments against Chandler starting. As you noted, Alex Len has been far more effective, overall, as a starter this season. (Granted, Len shot a higher field goal percentage when coming off the bench, as opposed to starting, in each of the previous two seasons, and his career field goal percentage is still slightly greater off the bench compared to a starting role, so some of what we are seeing now may just be a matter of a small sample size.) Also, if Chandler comes off the bench, he could play more in the fourth quarter—when his experience would be most useful—in games where the Suns possess a legitimate chance to win.

But perhaps the greatest reason to start Chandler is to showcase him for a potential trade. If he can prove that he is healthy and productive, as has been the case thus far this year, then he might still profile as a difference-maker on an otherwise respectable team that needs help at center.

Another reason we may be starting Chandler is to have more leverage in Len negotiations in an extension, not being the current starter.

[Zelaznyrules]

Spoiler:

I've made a similar comment in another thread regarding Len's contribution as a starter and I agree with you 100%. It's not blow it out of the water impressive but he has been considerably more consistent in contribution. I think he needs to start. As good as Chandler has been for us, I think Len should be our starter in order to get more experience and hopefully improve on his above average contribution as a starter. Aside from his admittedly very impressive last game against LA (14/14/5bks 60fg%), he's been subpar as the first big off the bench (8.4/6.5 .43fg%). As a starter, he's a fairly solid 10/10 and close to .57fg%. Unless the FO's plan is to "hide" him so he gets a lower offer in RFA, then I see no reason why we shouldn't start Len.

Part of the reason why the Suns may be starting Chandler is that as a thirty-something veteran with a history of injuries, starting may be easier on his body, because it allows him to begin playing when he is warm and loose (after warm-ups), rather than sitting on the bench and checking into the game cold. We saw this sort of dynamic at play with a thirty-six-year old Grant Hill in '08-'09. In 14 games off the bench (playing behind Matt Barnes under head coach Terry Porter), Hill shot .425 from the field, .167 on threes, and .778 from the free throw line for a terrible .474 True Shooting Percentage. But in 68 starts, Hill shot .536 from the field, .344 on threes, and .811 from the free throw line for an excellent .598 True Shooting Percentage.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/h/hillgr01/splits/2009

Of course, there could have been other reasons for the statistical difference beyond simply starting the game while warmed up instead of cold (for instance, more total minutes as a starter and, perhaps, a greater percentage of his minutes with Steve Nash). Yet if Hill had started all 82 games, the Suns may have made the playoffs that year.

Another example in that vein is Kevin Johnson during the '97-'98 season. As I recently noted in another post, in his 12 starts that season, Johnson averaged 16.3 points, 6.2 assists, and a .600 True Shooting Percentage—no player in the NBA averaged at least 16.0/6.0/.600 that season, and no one would do so again until Steve Nash in '01-'02. (The only player to reach each of those marks in '96-'97 was Kevin Johnson; the only two players to do so in '95-'96 were Kevin Johnson and Anfernee Hardaway.) But in 38 games off the bench in '97-'98, K.J. posted a modest .528 True Shooting Percentage.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/j/johnske02/splits/1998

On February 26, 1998, Johnson shot a career-worst 0-9 from the field in 20 minutes off the bench at Utah; in Phoenix's next game, the next night at the Clippers, he received the only "DNP-CD" of his career. Asked thereafter about his "struggles" (never mind the fact that prior to the 0-9, K.J.'s field goal percentage for the year had been .494, identical to his career mark entering the season despite coming off the bench for his last 15 appearances), he noted that one of his difficulties had been entering games cold rather than warmed up and trying to make that adjustment.

But in his last 7 starts of that season, including the playoff opener (the only playoff game that he started that year), Johnson shot .571 from the field (52-91, 13.0 FGA per contest) and .860 from the free throw line (37-43, 6.1 FTA per contest) for a .641 True Shooting Percentage. In those last 7 starts (two in November, four in March, and the playoff opener in late April), K.J. converted at least half his field goal attempts six times, scored at least 18 points six times, sank at least 6 free throws four times, and recorded at least 6 assists five times, averaging 20.1 points and 7.0 assists. But after the first eight games of that season, Johnson usually came off the bench.

Of course, Tyson Chandler is not exactly on the Hall of Fame-caliber offensive level of Grant Hill or Kevin Johnson; when healthy, those two players ranked among the five or ten greatest ever at their respective positions, whereas Chandler's offense is basically forgettable. And last season, his overall performance level did not seem to drop off in his six appearances off the bench. But starting, as opposed to coming off the bench cold, may be in the best interests of an injury-prone veteran. Additionally, Watson may want to respect Chandler's seniority.

Granted, there are valid arguments against Chandler starting. As you noted, Alex Len has been far more effective, overall, as a starter this season. (Granted, Len shot a higher field goal percentage when coming off the bench, as opposed to starting, in each of the previous two seasons, and his career field goal percentage is still slightly greater off the bench compared to a starting role, so some of what we are seeing now may just be a matter of a small sample size.) Also, if Chandler comes off the bench, he could play more in the fourth quarter—when his experience would be most useful—in games where the Suns possess a legitimate chance to win.

But perhaps the greatest reason to start Chandler is to showcase him for a potential trade. If he can prove that he is healthy and productive, as has been the case thus far this year, then he might still profile as a difference-maker on an otherwise respectable team that needs help at center.

Another reason we may be starting Chandler is to have more leverage in Len negotiations in an extension, not being the current starter.

I think that was suggested in an earlier post and perhaps I'm being naive but I just don't buy it. It would be close to suicide for an organization to do that to a player in the NBA, they just have too much power and even the hint of this kind of player mistreatment would cause problems.

I'd prefer to start Len but IMO his minutes are limited more by his propensity to pick up quick fouls than anything else.

[bwgood77]

Spoiler:

Part of the reason why the Suns may be starting Chandler is that as a thirty-something veteran with a history of injuries, starting may be easier on his body, because it allows him to begin playing when he is warm and loose (after warm-ups), rather than sitting on the bench and checking into the game cold. We saw this sort of dynamic at play with a thirty-six-year old Grant Hill in '08-'09. In 14 games off the bench (playing behind Matt Barnes under head coach Terry Porter), Hill shot .425 from the field, .167 on threes, and .778 from the free throw line for a terrible .474 True Shooting Percentage. But in 68 starts, Hill shot .536 from the field, .344 on threes, and .811 from the free throw line for an excellent .598 True Shooting Percentage.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/h/hillgr01/splits/2009

Of course, there could have been other reasons for the statistical difference beyond simply starting the game while warmed up instead of cold (for instance, more total minutes as a starter and, perhaps, a greater percentage of his minutes with Steve Nash). Yet if Hill had started all 82 games, the Suns may have made the playoffs that year.

Another example in that vein is Kevin Johnson during the '97-'98 season. As I recently noted in another post, in his 12 starts that season, Johnson averaged 16.3 points, 6.2 assists, and a .600 True Shooting Percentage—no player in the NBA averaged at least 16.0/6.0/.600 that season, and no one would do so again until Steve Nash in '01-'02. (The only player to reach each of those marks in '96-'97 was Kevin Johnson; the only two players to do so in '95-'96 were Kevin Johnson and Anfernee Hardaway.) But in 38 games off the bench in '97-'98, K.J. posted a modest .528 True Shooting Percentage.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/j/johnske02/splits/1998

On February 26, 1998, Johnson shot a career-worst 0-9 from the field in 20 minutes off the bench at Utah; in Phoenix's next game, the next night at the Clippers, he received the only "DNP-CD" of his career. Asked thereafter about his "struggles" (never mind the fact that prior to the 0-9, K.J.'s field goal percentage for the year had been .494, identical to his career mark entering the season despite coming off the bench for his last 15 appearances), he noted that one of his difficulties had been entering games cold rather than warmed up and trying to make that adjustment.

But in his last 7 starts of that season, including the playoff opener (the only playoff game that he started that year), Johnson shot .571 from the field (52-91, 13.0 FGA per contest) and .860 from the free throw line (37-43, 6.1 FTA per contest) for a .641 True Shooting Percentage. In those last 7 starts (two in November, four in March, and the playoff opener in late April), K.J. converted at least half his field goal attempts six times, scored at least 18 points six times, sank at least 6 free throws four times, and recorded at least 6 assists five times, averaging 20.1 points and 7.0 assists. But after the first eight games of that season, Johnson usually came off the bench.

Of course, Tyson Chandler is not exactly on the Hall of Fame-caliber offensive level of Grant Hill or Kevin Johnson; when healthy, those two players ranked among the five or ten greatest ever at their respective positions, whereas Chandler's offense is basically forgettable. And last season, his overall performance level did not seem to drop off in his six appearances off the bench. But starting, as opposed to coming off the bench cold, may be in the best interests of an injury-prone veteran. Additionally, Watson may want to respect Chandler's seniority.

Granted, there are valid arguments against Chandler starting. As you noted, Alex Len has been far more effective, overall, as a starter this season. (Granted, Len shot a higher field goal percentage when coming off the bench, as opposed to starting, in each of the previous two seasons, and his career field goal percentage is still slightly greater off the bench compared to a starting role, so some of what we are seeing now may just be a matter of a small sample size.) Also, if Chandler comes off the bench, he could play more in the fourth quarter—when his experience would be most useful—in games where the Suns possess a legitimate chance to win.

But perhaps the greatest reason to start Chandler is to showcase him for a potential trade. If he can prove that he is healthy and productive, as has been the case thus far this year, then he might still profile as a difference-maker on an otherwise respectable team that needs help at center.

Another reason we may be starting Chandler is to have more leverage in Len negotiations in an extension, not being the current starter.

I think that was suggested in an earlier post and perhaps I'm being naive but I just don't buy it. It would be close to suicide for an organization to do that to a player in the NBA, they just have too much power and even the hint of this kind of player mistreatment would cause problems.

I'd prefer to start Len but IMO his minutes are limited more by his propensity to pick up quick fouls than anything else.

I don't think it's mistreatment. Chandler is better. You tell him they feel he is the starter of the future and we'd like you to stay and give him a good reasonable offer. I can't see too many teams going after him. Maybe Brooklyn. I'd probably match regardless but would probably hesitate on a max, but I can't really see that happening.

[Zelaznyrules]

Spoiler:

Another reason we may be starting Chandler is to have more leverage in Len negotiations in an extension, not being the current starter.

I think that was suggested in an earlier post and perhaps I'm being naive but I just don't buy it. It would be close to suicide for an organization to do that to a player in the NBA, they just have too much power and even the hint of this kind of player mistreatment would cause problems.

I'd prefer to start Len but IMO his minutes are limited more by his propensity to pick up quick fouls than anything else.

I don't think it's mistreatment. Chandler is better. You tell him they feel he is the starter of the future and we'd like you to stay and give him a good reasonable offer. I can't see too many teams going after him. Maybe Brooklyn. I'd probably match regardless but would probably hesitate on a max, but I can't really see that happening.

It's mistreatment if it's done primarily in an effort to keep his salary down. As for Chandler being better, I'm unconvinced. Tyson is better some nights but he's had some unimpressive performances too. And I'm very unconvinced that Len will be an afterthought in free agency. I think he'll have plenty of suitors.

I don't know if a max deal is in his future but I wouldn't be shocked to see someone give him a contract in that range. I hope we keep Alex but if someone does give him a Gobert type contract, we'll probably let him walk. But if he shows that he can routinely stay on the court for 30+ minutes and perform as he has this season, a max deal isn't that unreasonable IMO.

[bwgood77]

I think that was suggested in an earlier post and perhaps I'm being naive but I just don't buy it. It would be close to suicide for an organization to do that to a player in the NBA, they just have too much power and even the hint of this kind of player mistreatment would cause problems.

I'd prefer to start Len but IMO his minutes are limited more by his propensity to pick up quick fouls than anything else.

I don't think it's mistreatment. Chandler is better. You tell him they feel he is the starter of the future and we'd like you to stay and give him a good reasonable offer. I can't see too many teams going after him. Maybe Brooklyn. I'd probably match regardless but would probably hesitate on a max, but I can't really see that happening.

It's mistreatment if it's done primarily in an effort to keep his salary down. As for Chandler being better, I'm unconvinced. Tyson is better some nights but he's had some unimpressive performances too. And I'm very unconvinced that Len will be an afterthought in free agency. I think he'll have plenty of suitors.

I don't know if a max deal is in his future but I wouldn't be shocked to see someone give him a contract in that range. I hope we keep Alex but if someone does give him a Gobert type contract, we'll probably let him walk. But if he shows that he can routinely stay on the court for 30+ minutes and perform as he has this season, a max deal isn't that unreasonable IMO.

Well I've pretty much gone through the teams so I can't imagine who will offer him a ton of money. The C position is pretty deep and some teams have multiple ones they will try to get rid of one possibly (Philly, Orlando, Minnesota, possibly Toronto, etc). I don't think they would do it solely for that but it could be one factor when making a decision, or they could have told Chandler he WILL be the starter when we signed him.

[Zelaznyrules]

I don't think it's mistreatment. Chandler is better. You tell him they feel he is the starter of the future and we'd like you to stay and give him a good reasonable offer. I can't see too many teams going after him. Maybe Brooklyn. I'd probably match regardless but would probably hesitate on a max, but I can't really see that happening.

It's mistreatment if it's done primarily in an effort to keep his salary down. As for Chandler being better, I'm unconvinced. Tyson is better some nights but he's had some unimpressive performances too. And I'm very unconvinced that Len will be an afterthought in free agency. I think he'll have plenty of suitors.

I don't know if a max deal is in his future but I wouldn't be shocked to see someone give him a contract in that range. I hope we keep Alex but if someone does give him a Gobert type contract, we'll probably let him walk. But if he shows that he can routinely stay on the court for 30+ minutes and perform as he has this season, a max deal isn't that unreasonable IMO.

Well I've pretty much gone through the teams so I can't imagine who will offer him a ton of money. The C position is pretty deep and some teams have multiple ones they will try to get rid of one possibly (Philly, Orlando, Minnesota, possibly Toronto, etc). I don't think they would do it solely for that but it could be one factor when making a decision, or they could have told Chandler he WILL be the starter when we signed him.

Yeah and I thought about your point a little more and I guess I can see how it could still be a factor. They might consider Chandler better today and still be willing to start Len over him if they were confident he was going to be here. So I guess not wanting to risk increasing his value could play a small part in that decision