The Wizard known as Austin Rivers

[payitforward]

If we're going to talk about the guy...

Jodie Meeks played 1119 backcourt minutes last season. This season, that number should be close to 0 minutes.
That alone is a major improvement.

Just saw this, sorry for slow response.

I guess you are saying that minutes to Austin Rivers over Jodie Meeks would be an improvement -- is that it? So, do tell: where will the "major improvement" come from when Rivers plays Meeks's minutes? Is it in last year's numbers for the players for example?

Is it the extra .5 point per 40 minutes that Rivers scored (by using an extra 1.2 possessions on offense)? Is that what you like? No... I guess not. Why would anyone like that?

So, it must be the extra rebounds that the bigger, more athletic Rivers pulled down, huh? Oh... wait a minute, sorry. Oddly, it was Meeks who was the better rebounder -- almost 60% better. How strange...?

I know. It must be steals & turnovers. Rivers must be better overall at that, huh? What? He's not? In fact, he's twice as bad at that as Meeks overall? Gee.

Please explain: in what sense will Rivers provide an improvement -- given that he's likely to make us worse in scoring, rebounding, steals & turnovers?

To be clearer, given that Jodie Meeks is a much much better player than Austin Rivers, how will we be better if Meeks sits & Rivers plays -- which seems to be what you'd like?

It’s nice that Meeks got a some rebounds and steals, and had fewer turnovers than Rivers, which should come as no surprise considering that Rivers handles the ball a ton more than Meeks.

But what you failed to mention is that Meeks shot 34.3% on threes last season, while Rivers shot 37.8%. That stat is more noteworthy and important than the other stats you cited, imo, given that Meeks' primary role last season was to be a 3 pt shooter off the bench.

Here's another stat you chose not to mention: Rivers was 4.2 in assists per 36 last season, compared to 2.3 per 36 for Meeks.

I didn't mention Rivers's assists in the post above, Zards, but I mentioned them in at least one other post. Yes, he did that better than Meeks.

As to the 3pt. % & the guys' roles -- does that mean that when we consider either player's efficiency at fulfilling his role of being a scorer off the bench, we don't look at all his scoring attempts? After all, Austin Rivers took @ 30% more 2-point attempts than 3-point attempts. Plus his points from the line also count.

Out of 16.2 FGAs of all kinds, plus 3.2 FTAs, Austin Rivers produced 18.6 points per 40 minutes.
Out of 14.6 FGAs of all kinds, plus 4.33 FTAs, Jodie Meeks produced 18.1 points per 40 minutes.

That made Jodie Meeks a better scorer off the bench, Zards. In exactly the same way that Rivers got more assists. Not to mention that last year was one of poorer years of Meeks's career (he was over 40% on 3s in three of the last four years, for example) while being the best year ever (albeit a bad year overall) for Rivers.

But, the real truth is there's no sense in comparing these 2 guys. Meeks makes $3+m, has been injured a couple of times, & will turn 31 a week from today. Austin Rivers makes $12.5m, isn't on an injury-related decline, & just turned 26.

I'll be just as happy as you if Austin Rivers improves this year, & I'll be ecstatic if he actually plays well (it would take a whole lot of improving for him to do that). I'm just not interested in pretending that he has ever done it so far. He doesn't get any glow b/c he's become a Wizard for a year.

[payitforward]

The beauty of basketball is that the game isn't played on a spreadsheet....

You're right. You can't put the beauty of basketball on a spreadsheet. It's an incredible game, full of superb athleticism, intense competition, & both thrilling highs & devastating lows. None of which can be captured on a spreadsheet.

Of course, wins & losses can be captured on a spreadsheet. Right? & who wins a particular game -- not the story of how it was won but the numbers that determine who won -- can be put on a spreadsheet, right?

& at a team level, we are all perfectly aware that your team shooting a higher TS% than the opposing team helps your team win a game, right? & that it helps again the next game? Meaning that the more often you do it, the more often you win? Right?

Plus, we are all aware as well that having more chances to score (getting to take more shots & FTAs than your opponent) can help compensate for recording a lower TS% than your opponent in a game & allow you to win it anyway. Right?

And we are also all aware that rebounds are the main way a team can get more chances to score than an opponent. Right? Although TOs & steals also play a role -- smaller, but still part of the picture -- as we know? Right?

Plus, all of us also know that if your team does both in a game -- has more chances to score than your opponent & also converts those chances at a higher overall % -- it's actually impossible to lose the game. It can't be done. That's something we all know, right?

& we also know that these team numbers I'm talking about -- for TS% & chances to score (number of FGAs/FTAs, etc.) are simply the same numbers for the individual players added up. Period. Nothing more. Just those numbers. Just added up.

So, in that case, when you write that you...

...find it unlikely that Rivers won't be an improvement over Meeks (especially when playing minutes next to a great complementary guard in Satoransky), and I suspect many people would agree....

...what you mean is that you think Rivers will produce better numbers of the kind listed above than Meeks did. Right? Partly b/c he will be playing alongside Sato -- right? Otherwise, you mean... what exactly?

But hey, we'll see what happens when the season starts.

That we will. But, here's an interesting question for you: who was the "complementary guard" Rivers played next to in 2016-17? Oh yeah, it was Chris Paul -- right?

[nate33]

PIF, you keep repeating the same arguments about how box score stats translate into wins and losses, but I don't think you've ever adequately addressed the criticisms raised by me, Dat2U and others.

Regarding possessions, sure, it's a given that, all else being equal, getting steals is better than not getting steals, or getting rebounds is better than not getting rebounds. But in basketball, all else is not equal. I hope you could agree with me that a player who recklessly seeks steals is likely to end up with more steals than a conservative defender, but he is also going to be out of position more often and therefore unable to challenge shots or play good help D. It may well be the case that the conservative defender who doesn't get steals is actually the better defender. Bruce Bowen was regarded as the best perimeter defender in the league during his day while averaging less than 1 steal a game during his peak years in San Antonio.

Likewise, a guy who gets more rebounds may be doing so at the expense of challenging a shot, or boxing out his man, or leaking out to get a fast break opportunity. It's possible for the guy with less rebounds to actually be doing more good things on the court for his team. I'll take peak Amir Johnson's defense over Kevin Love's, rebounds notwithstanding.

Likewise, a guy who maintains a higher TS% on low volume may do so because his teammates know enough to not give him the ball except when wide open with a catch-and-shoot opportunity because that's all he can do offensively. Meanwhile, the better offensive player who actually has the skills to create his own shot is called upon to take more contested, late-in-the-shot clock attempts because he's the only guy on the court capable of doing so. Shot creation, even at mediocre efficiency, is a skill that isn't fairly appreciated by box score stats. Lou Williams is a better offensive player than Joe Harris.

How this bears on the Austin Rivers conversation is debatable. I'd still take Sato over Rivers in a heartbeat because his box score stats (other than points), even at low usage, are so far ahead of Rivers'. But I'm not prepared to say that Meeks is better than Rivers even though you can squint at the box score data and make the argument. I've seen both guys play and I think Rivers has more tools in his kit to help a team win games. Rivers has the skills to play the Meeks role as an off-the-ball low-usage shooter and probably do it just as well as Meeks. But Rivers also has the ability to play with the ball as a shot creator. He's only mediocre at it, but he's a heck of a lot better at it than Meeks. Rivers is also a better defender (mostly because nearly anyone is a better defender than Meeks).

[DCZards]

How this bears on the Austin Rivers conversation is debatable. I'd still take Sato over Rivers in a heartbeat because his box score stats (other than points), even at low usage, are so far ahead of Rivers'. But I'm not prepared to say that Meeks is better than Rivers even though you can squint at the box score data and make the argument. I've seen both guys play and I think Rivers has more tools in his kit to help a team win games. Rivers has the skills to play the Meeks role as an off-the-ball low-usage shooter and probably do it just as well as Meeks. But Rivers also has the ability to play with the ball as a shot creator. He's only mediocre at it, but he's a heck of a lot better at it than Meeks. Rivers is also a better defender (mostly because nearly anyone is a better defender than Meeks).

I. Totally. Agree.

Rivers offensive skillset is why I believe Sato will be an even more effective player when paired with Rivers as opposed to Meeks.

[I_Like_Dirt]

Rivers isn't very good by NBA standards. Sure. But he also isn't the worst player in the league. It's going to be painful watching him play however many minutes he winds up getting, but it was going to be painful watching Meeks or whoever else get those minutes. I'd rather Sato, too, though we will have to see how things shake down because there should be minutes for both of them, and even Sato isn't particularly good just yet, just better than Rivers over the course of a season. I don't really see how anyone could really argue that Rivers moves the needle in any particular direction. He's more of the same on the bench, just a guy who happens to have basically always been given greater opportunities than he really deserved for some reason - drafted too high, potential overestimated, and then overpaid coming off of his rookie deal. The same thing happened with Harrison Barnes (minus the nepotism factor) even though Barnes is a better player than Rivers.

[Gig18]

The whole "worst player in the league" deal is ridiculous.
I don't like getting into stats. They're important, but they're just a tool to analyze a game; they're not the game itself.
Still, here are a couple of relevant stats.
Rivers last year played 33.7 minutes a game for a team that I think won one less game than we did. You don't play 33 minutes a game if you stink.
Rivers averaged 15.1 points a game. That would have been third on the Wiz, behind Beal and Wall.
Rivers hit 136 threes last year --- something we desperately need to add --- which would have ranked third on the Wiz, behind Beal and Otto.
And he shot .378 from three; which is actually better than both Beal and Wall shot.
Time will tell. Flame away

[payitforward]

Rivers isn't the worst player in the league -- of course not!

He was one of the worst players in the league his first few years, however. & even now, he's in the bottom @ 20% of guards.

Nor has anyone ever thought he was a good player. No one has ever pointed to Austin Rivers and said "now, there's a good NBA player." He wasn't a good player in college either.

No one on this board would have said it either until... all of a sudden he was a Wizard.

& why is Austin Rivers a Wizard? Because Marcin Gortat had to go, that's why. Gortat was a problem for John Wall, & a problem for John is a problem for the team.

Here's an obvious fact: when you trade a problem, you don't get a solution in return. For your problem you get someone else's problem in return. Rivers was a problem for the Clips, because he isn't any good. & he's the coach's son -- the coach and former GM (who acquired his son).

Lawrence Frank runs the Clippers now, & he took Doc Rivers out of the GM position. Whereupon it became possible to get rid of the problem. They gave us their problem; we gave them our problem. Each team could have kept the expiring player that was the problem. Neither team did anything to build its team longer term by making the trade.

[payitforward]

The whole "worst player in the league" deal is ridiculous.
I don't like getting into stats. They're important, but they're just a tool to analyze a game; they're not the game itself.
Still, here are a couple of relevant stats.
Rivers last year played 33.7 minutes a game for a team that I think won one less game than we did. You don't play 33 minutes a game if you stink.
Rivers averaged 15.1 points a game. That would have been third on the Wiz, behind Beal and Wall.
Rivers hit 136 threes last year --- something we desperately need to add --- which would have ranked third on the Wiz, behind Beal and Otto.
And he shot .378 from three; which is actually better than both Beal and Wall shot.
Time will tell. Flame away

No need to flame. You don't like stats. Then you quote stats in support of your position. Partial stats. Stats that tell no particular story.

That said, it is true that shooting .378 on 3-pointers is pretty good. How about shooting 46% on 2-pointers? Is that good too? How about shooting 64% from the line? That's good too? How about being below average on virtually every single thing he did on the court (with a couple of exceptions to be sure)? That's good too?

Nah. So... don't mention those things! Just point to the 3-pt. %. Problem solved.

[Ruzious]

The whole "worst player in the league" deal is ridiculous.
I don't like getting into stats. They're important, but they're just a tool to analyze a game; they're not the game itself.
Still, here are a couple of relevant stats.
Rivers last year played 33.7 minutes a game for a team that I think won one less game than we did. You don't play 33 minutes a game if you stink.
Rivers averaged 15.1 points a game. That would have been third on the Wiz, behind Beal and Wall.
Rivers hit 136 threes last year --- something we desperately need to add --- which would have ranked third on the Wiz, behind Beal and Otto.
And he shot .378 from three; which is actually better than both Beal and Wall shot.
Time will tell. Flame away

No need to flame. You don't like stats. Then you quote stats in support of your position. Partial stats. Stats that tell no particular story.

That said, it is true that shooting .378 on 3-pointers is pretty good. How about shooting 46% on 2-pointers? Is that good too? How about shooting 64% from the line? That's good too? How about being below average on virtually every single thing he did on the court (with a couple of exceptions to be sure)? That's good too?

Nah. So... don't mention those things! Just point to the 3-pt. %. Problem solved.

Sheesh. At least with a player his age that is improving, there's some realistic hope that he'll improve. Let's at least recognize that possibility - which does not exist with Gortat and Meeks.

[I_Like_Dirt]

He was one of the worst players in the league his first few years, however. & even now, he's in the bottom @ 20% of guards.

Shenanigans! He also wasn't in the bottom 20% of guards. Guys like Davon Reed, Tyler Dorsey, Kobi Simmons and Jawun Evans also played in the NBA last season. Heck, the Wizards themselves had Tim Frazier, Ramon Sessions and Jody Meeks on their roster - yes, all of them are worse than Rivers. Rivers isn't a particularly good player who's going to change the Wizards fortunes or anything like that. You're wildly over exaggerating here. Your emotions are clouding your judgment.

[Kanyewest]

The whole "worst player in the league" deal is ridiculous.
I don't like getting into stats. They're important, but they're just a tool to analyze a game; they're not the game itself.
Still, here are a couple of relevant stats.
Rivers last year played 33.7 minutes a game for a team that I think won one less game than we did. You don't play 33 minutes a game if you stink.
Rivers averaged 15.1 points a game. That would have been third on the Wiz, behind Beal and Wall.
Rivers hit 136 threes last year --- something we desperately need to add --- which would have ranked third on the Wiz, behind Beal and Otto.
And he shot .378 from three; which is actually better than both Beal and Wall shot.
Time will tell. Flame away

No need to flame. You don't like stats. Then you quote stats in support of your position. Partial stats. Stats that tell no particular story.

That said, it is true that shooting .378 on 3-pointers is pretty good. How about shooting 46% on 2-pointers? Is that good too? How about shooting 64% from the line? That's good too? How about being below average on virtually every single thing he did on the court (with a couple of exceptions to be sure)? That's good too?

Nah. So... don't mention those things! Just point to the 3-pt. %. Problem solved.

Sheesh. At least with a player his age that is improving, there's some realistic hope that he'll improve. Let's at least recognize that possibility - which does not exist with Gortat and Meeks.

There is a possibility that Meeks' shooting could improve as he did improve throughout the season. He started the first two months of the season as a 31% 3 point shooter and 35 % from the field. In the 2nd half of the season, Meeks shot 45% from the field and 38% from 3 point range. And in the final month of the season, Meeks shot a blistering 42% from 3 point range.

Basically, I don't think it's unreasonable that he could shoot better than 39.9 FG% from the field and 34.3% from 3.

[Ruzious]

No need to flame. You don't like stats. Then you quote stats in support of your position. Partial stats. Stats that tell no particular story.

That said, it is true that shooting .378 on 3-pointers is pretty good. How about shooting 46% on 2-pointers? Is that good too? How about shooting 64% from the line? That's good too? How about being below average on virtually every single thing he did on the court (with a couple of exceptions to be sure)? That's good too?

Nah. So... don't mention those things! Just point to the 3-pt. %. Problem solved.

Sheesh. At least with a player his age that is improving, there's some realistic hope that he'll improve. Let's at least recognize that possibility - which does not exist with Gortat and Meeks.

There is a possibility that Meeks' shooting could improve as he did improve throughout the season. He started the first two months of the season as a 31% 3 point shooter and 35 % from the field. In the 2nd half of the season, Meeks shot 45% from the field and 38% from 3 point range. And in the final month of the season, Meeks shot a blistering 42% from 3 point range.

Basically, I don't think it's unreasonable that he could shoot better than 39.9 FG% from the field and 34.3% from 3.

That's fair. He was "Austin Rivers as a rookie awful" (ARAARA) in the first half of the season and not too bad in the second half. Still, mediocre guards his age are generally in decline mode.

[Kanyewest]

Sheesh. At least with a player his age that is improving, there's some realistic hope that he'll improve. Let's at least recognize that possibility - which does not exist with Gortat and Meeks.

There is a possibility that Meeks' shooting could improve as he did improve throughout the season. He started the first two months of the season as a 31% 3 point shooter and 35 % from the field. In the 2nd half of the season, Meeks shot 45% from the field and 38% from 3 point range. And in the final month of the season, Meeks shot a blistering 42% from 3 point range.

Basically, I don't think it's unreasonable that he could shoot better than 39.9 FG% from the field and 34.3% from 3.

That's fair. He was "Austin Rivers as a rookie awful" (ARAARA) in the first half of the season and not too bad in the second half. Still, mediocre guards his age are generally in decline mode.

Yeah, just to be clear, I'm not expecting him to be that good. I'm just not eliminating the possibility he's not as mediocre.

[payitforward]

Sheesh. At least with a player his age that is improving, there's some realistic hope that he'll improve. Let's at least recognize that possibility - which does not exist with Gortat and Meeks.

I agree 100%, Ruz. &, I think I even said more or less the same thing.

In case I didn't, or if I wasn't clear: Gortat has declined measurably in the last few years. This is something one would expect. Last year was one of the 2 worst of his career, & it is almost inevitable that his decline will continue over however many more years he plays in the league.

At the same time, it's worth recognizing that Marcin has declined from a pretty high level. I don't mean to suggest he was ever one of the top Centers in the league -- but he was quite good! Even last year, even though he had declined, he was still an above average NBA Center.

Yet, his productivity is likely to go down again this year. Hence, it was understandable that we traded him, & it's also understandable that we weren't able to get much for him, given where he is in his career. The "Must Go This Weekend" sign Ernie hung on him didn't help with that, of course, but it's doubtful we'd have gotten a whole lot more for him under any circumstances.

Meeks too has declined. Worse, he was never as good a player as Gortat, so his decline has made him a below average player. Worse yet, injuries have added to his problems & might accelerate his decline.

Austin Rivers, OTOH, just turned 26. He's in his peak years. He's also improved bit by bit over the last three years. Again, this is something you would expect. It will be no surprise if he improves a bit again this year & a considerable surprise if he gets worse.

That's how I view Gortat, Meeks & Rivers -- or, rather, that's what these guys numbers say about them. This is not "analysis," it's just recounting basic facts. Players' numbers tell you how effective they are; the career arc of development, peak & decline is similar for almost all players.

The problem with Austin Rivers is that even his last 3 years of development haven't made him nearly as productive as an average NBA guard. Of course, another improvement similar to last year's -- which is certainly quite possible! -- will help. But it would take a big jump to get him up to average.

Still, if he does get a little better & Meeks does get a little worse, Rivers might not be a downgrade over Meeks in the coming season. But, that's about the best that can be said for him with any dash of realism. If he takes a big jump, great, but there's no particular basis to expect that -- you can hope for it, but that's as far as it goes.

[doclinkin]

Sheesh. At least with a player his age that is improving, there's some realistic hope that he'll improve. Let's at least recognize that possibility - which does not exist with Gortat and Meeks.

There is a possibility that Meeks' shooting could improve as he did improve throughout the season. He started the first two months of the season as a 31% 3 point shooter and 35 % from the field. In the 2nd half of the season, Meeks shot 45% from the field and 38% from 3 point range. And in the final month of the season, Meeks shot a blistering 42% from 3 point range.

Basically, I don't think it's unreasonable that he could shoot better than 39.9 FG% from the field and 34.3% from 3.

That's fair. He was "Austin Rivers as a rookie awful" (ARAARA) in the first half of the season and not too bad in the second half. Still, mediocre guards his age are generally in decline mode.

Especially after you take away their steroids...

[dckingsfan]

The problem with Rivers being below average is that he has to take minutes from somebody when he plays...

[DCZards]

The problem with Rivers being below average is that he has to take minutes from somebody when he plays...

Some of those minutes will come from Wall and Beal, which is a good thing because both need to play fewer minutes than they've played the last couple of seasons.

[nate33]

The problem with Rivers being below average is that he has to take minutes from somebody when he plays...

Some of those minutes will come from Wall and Beal, which is a good thing because both need to play fewer minutes than they've played the last couple of seasons.

If Rivers replaces Beal for the final 3 minutes of each game, it would be a massive improvement.

(Though, to be fair, Beal's indescribably horrific clutch time performance last year was probably a bit of a fluke. There may never again be a season where a high volume player's clutch time performance is so far below his performance over the first 45 minutes of a game. Over the first 45 minutes of games, Beal was a top 5 SG and easily an All Star. Over the last 3 minutes he was one of the worst players in the league and a complete disaster. In clutch time minutes, on a per 36 basis, Beal hit 8.0 out of 29.1 shot attempts, for a FG% of 27.6%. He shot 1.7 out of 10.7 from 3pt range for a 3PT% of 15.6%. His clutch time FT% was just 71%.)

[doclinkin]

The problem with Rivers being below average is that he has to take minutes from somebody when he plays...

Some of those minutes will come from Wall and Beal, which is a good thing because both need to play fewer minutes than they've played the last couple of seasons.

If Rivers replaces Beal for the final 3 minutes of each game, it would be a massive improvement.

(Though, to be fair, Beal's indescribably horrific clutch time performance last year was probably a bit of a fluke. There may never again be a season where a high volume player's clutch time performance is so far below his performance over the first 45 minutes of a game. Over the first 45 minutes of games, Beal was a top 5 SG and easily an All Star. Over the last 3 minutes he was one of the worst players in the league and a complete disaster. In clutch time minutes, on a per 36 basis, Beal hit 8.0 out of 29.1 shot attempts, for a FG% of 27.6%. He shot 1.7 out of 10.7 from 3pt range for a 3PT% of 15.6%. His clutch time FT% was just 71%.)

Mentally weak. One reason I suspect why his career FT% is below 80. His shot is too pretty, mechanics too sound for this to be the case. You'd hope some of Rivers' irrational unreasonable and unfounded confidence wears off on Beal. And maybe that is the benefit of adding a personality like AR, the team embraces their bad attitude and rises up to finish the fights that Rivers picks. Right now we are poised to collect the greatest number of Techs per game of any team in the league, but not from feisty defense, but from bitching and whining at the refs, mugging and posing. We need something to catalyze the persecution complex into righteous rage and competitive effort. So far I don't see it, more vulnerable to internal implosion than an Us against the World cohesion. But sometimes the unlikely occurs.


Sigh. "Thats the reason I'm a bullets fan."

[daSwami]

The problem with Rivers being below average is that he has to take minutes from somebody when he plays...

Some of those minutes will come from Wall and Beal, which is a good thing because both need to play fewer minutes than they've played the last couple of seasons.

If Rivers replaces Beal for the final 3 minutes of each game, it would be a massive improvement.

(Though, to be fair, Beal's indescribably horrific clutch time performance last year was probably a bit of a fluke. There may never again be a season where a high volume player's clutch time performance is so far below his performance over the first 45 minutes of a game. Over the first 45 minutes of games, Beal was a top 5 SG and easily an All Star. Over the last 3 minutes he was one of the worst players in the league and a complete disaster. In clutch time minutes, on a per 36 basis, Beal hit 8.0 out of 29.1 shot attempts, for a FG% of 27.6%. He shot 1.7 out of 10.7 from 3pt range for a 3PT% of 15.6%. His clutch time FT% was just 71%.)

I speculated on this a couple years back when Beal shot an airball free-throw in the play-offs, but my theory is that he's prone to "the yips" (aka focal dystonia) - a neurological disorder wherein the the body produces too much adrenline under stress. A sports psychologist could probably help.