Discuss Ernie Grunfeld's GM skills here (Part 2)

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

Mine would have been Portis (last draft), and both Valentine and Felder this draft. (I also liked Brice Johnson)

I never would have resigned Beal for the money he got. I would have tried to Jordan Clarkson or any number of other two guards for much less than Beal's max.

As much as we question Beal, I'd have even more questions about guys like Clarkson & Crabbe. Clarkson seems like a mediocre stats on a poor team type of guy. You get up enough shots, your bound to make a few. That's him. As bad as Beal defended last year is likely Clarkson's ceiling as a defender, so there's that. Crabbe can shoot but doesn't bring much else to the table either. Beal has the highest upside. I'm definitely not in love with him but considering the market, his deal might not look so bad with a better coach and a modicum of good health.

Beal might in fact be the best option, but from a cost/benefit standpoint I'd take the other guys.

[payitforward]

...or just bring back Rasual Butler?

He's pretty old (36), but it seems like he's played the best of his career since his year out of the NBA playing in the D-League.

Yup, he had a very good season for SA. His 3pt % plummeted to 30+%, but his his 2pt% zoomed to 60%. He only played 432 minutes, which explains the odd distribution of numbers. Overall he was better this year than w/ us the previous one.

Butler rebounds well, and watching him with us it looked like he defended pretty well too. Back of the bench at his age, but at vet minimum for one year only he'd be quite a useful guy. W/ him instead of either Dudley or Rush, the team I'd have put together (in theory -- many a slip...) looks to me like the absolute best squad we could have fielded -- and a team w/ tons of future development as well as solid tradable assets. Plus lots of cap room going forward.

[payitforward]

[

...Wall / Satoransky / Felder
Beal / Seth Curry / Satoransky
Porter / Dudley / Oubre
Hickson(?) /Alan Wiliams / Brice Johnson / Christian Wood
Gortat / Biyombo / Onoaku

Or maybe Ellenson is in there, but no Johnson or Onoaku.

First critique might be of Hickson starting at the 4. But, in fact, he's a better player than he's given credit for, and he's also younger than people realize. J.J. Hickson is only 11 months and 29 days older than Markieff Morris! He's also a better player than Markieff - quite a lot better, actually.

Total salary: maybe $83m. And that's with Beal at his current deal.

That's a better team than our current team; I have no doubt about it! It's also full of tradable assets, young, and gives us plenty of flexibility as we go forward.

I just don't think starting Hickson at PF is a palatable option. First off, he's more of C now, secondly he's not very skilled or effective in space. I see him as a passable third string C. You could say the same for Alan Williams, he was effective in very limited minutes at C. I don't know how he looks away from the basket, IMO that plays against his strengths and into his weaknesses. I even have questions about Brice Johnson's future position. He looked like a modern small ball C in college, I think its going to be a huge adjustment for him to play at PF....

Oh, I agree. But, my version of the Wizards is a transitional team -- it's set up to be as good as possible this season and be set as well to get better in the following off season. And in any case, Morris does so much so badly that even with Hickson's shortcomings he is the more effective player between them.

Clearly we wouldn't know whether one or more of Alan Williams, Brice Johnson or Christian Wood would show enough that we'd feel we had a PF for the future. But, they are all pretty easily tradable assets, and we have such a bargain roster and so much cap space that if not, we'd solve that problem next off-season.

[Dat2U]

[

...Wall / Satoransky / Felder
Beal / Seth Curry / Satoransky
Porter / Dudley / Oubre
Hickson(?) /Alan Wiliams / Brice Johnson / Christian Wood
Gortat / Biyombo / Onoaku

Or maybe Ellenson is in there, but no Johnson or Onoaku.

First critique might be of Hickson starting at the 4. But, in fact, he's a better player than he's given credit for, and he's also younger than people realize. J.J. Hickson is only 11 months and 29 days older than Markieff Morris! He's also a better player than Markieff - quite a lot better, actually.

Total salary: maybe $83m. And that's with Beal at his current deal.

That's a better team than our current team; I have no doubt about it! It's also full of tradable assets, young, and gives us plenty of flexibility as we go forward.

I just don't think starting Hickson at PF is a palatable option. First off, he's more of C now, secondly he's not very skilled or effective in space. I see him as a passable third string C. You could say the same for Alan Williams, he was effective in very limited minutes at C. I don't know how he looks away from the basket, IMO that plays against his strengths and into his weaknesses. I even have questions about Brice Johnson's future position. He looked like a modern small ball C in college, I think its going to be a huge adjustment for him to play at PF....

Oh, I agree. But, my version of the Wizards is a transitional team -- it's set up to be as good as possible this season and be set as well to get better in the following off season. And in any case, Morris does so much so badly that even with Hickson's shortcomings he is the more effective player between them.

Clearly we wouldn't know whether one or more of Alan Williams, Brice Johnson or Christian Wood would show enough that we'd feel we had a PF for the future. But, they are all pretty easily tradable assets, and we have such a bargain roster and so much cap space that if not, we'd solve that problem next off-season.

In this case I'd go for Brandon Bass. He was arguably the Lakers most effective player last year and signed for the minimum with the Clips after being ignored in free agency. He doesn't have the ideal age or size but he's a decent NBA player. I honestly would have preferred him to Andrew Nicholson.

I do like the Wood, Onauku & Williams acquisitions however. I'd go Deyonta Davis over Brice Johnson. Davis is 3 yrs younger. Davis was impressive as a frosh on a veteran team while Brice took a few years before playing to his potential. I also think Davis could play either the 4 or 5 as he gets stronger and utilizes his perimeter skill more like he did in HS.

[payitforward]

[
I just don't think starting Hickson at PF is a palatable option. First off, he's more of C now, secondly he's not very skilled or effective in space. I see him as a passable third string C. You could say the same for Alan Williams, he was effective in very limited minutes at C. I don't know how he looks away from the basket, IMO that plays against his strengths and into his weaknesses. I even have questions about Brice Johnson's future position. He looked like a modern small ball C in college, I think its going to be a huge adjustment for him to play at PF....

Oh, I agree. But, my version of the Wizards is a transitional team -- it's set up to be as good as possible this season and be set as well to get better in the following off season. And in any case, Morris does so much so badly that even with Hickson's shortcomings he is the more effective player between them.

Clearly we wouldn't know whether one or more of Alan Williams, Brice Johnson or Christian Wood would show enough that we'd feel we had a PF for the future. But, they are all pretty easily tradable assets, and we have such a bargain roster and so much cap space that if not, we'd solve that problem next off-season.

In this case I'd go for Brandon Bass. He was arguably the Lakers most effective player last year and signed for the minimum with the Clips after being ignored in free agency. He doesn't have the ideal age or size but he's a decent NBA player. I honestly would have preferred him to Andrew Nicholson.

I do like the Wood, Onauku & Williams acquisitions however. I'd go Deyonta Davis over Brice Johnson. Davis is 3 yrs younger. Davis was impressive as a frosh on a veteran team while Brice took a few years before playing to his potential. I also think Davis could play either the 4 or 5 as he gets stronger and utilizes his perimeter skill more like he did in HS.

Bass instead of Hickson I take it? Sure, why not? Even if I disagree, this is a marginal issue.

Davis over Johnson -- I might be wrong, but somehow Brice Johnson just looks like a lock to be a pretty good NBA player. I.e. a low-risk pick. OTOH, Davis had great numbers as a Freshman (esp. offensive boards -- you know how much I like offensive boards, dat!), and he was ranked higher than Johnson in most mocks. His ceiling is very very high. I know very little about him, but it does seem strange he fell to R2 given his pedigree.

Then there's Zubac who is a year younger than Davis (well, 4 months younger anyway: just as Davis is actually only 2.4 years younger than Johnson ). He's enormous and extremely mobile.

The best is that if we targeted one of them, we might have wound up w/ yet another R2 pick! -- hey, don't sleep on Abdel Nader!!

[payitforward]

Looking back at the 2016 draft, it's surprising how many talented young bigs went in R2: Davis, Zubac, Diallo, Onoaku, Stone, Zimmerman, Cornelie -- plus a few other guys as well.

[closg00]

Looking back at the 2016 draft, it's surprising how many talented young bigs went in R2: Davis, Zubac, Diallo, Onoaku, Stone, Zimmerman, Cornelie -- plus a few other guys as well.

A couple of these ^ guys should be NBA ready right around the time that Gortat and Mahinmi are ready for retirement.

[payitforward]

Dat -- Brandon Bass vs. Hickson: just took a look, and Bass last season had the best year by far of his long career. His points per 40 minutes went down by 3.5 from the previous season -- but that was on 4.6 fewer shots than the previous year. He's a great 2-point shooter and FT shooter -- the result being a great .61 TS%. He doesn't rebound much, but, ahem, 36%+ of them were offensive rebounds which are worth much more to his team in added value. Doesn't turn it over, etc.

If he has another season or so like that in him, he's going to be a very big help -- at absolutely minimum cost! Yeah I wish we had him. How come he got no offers and had to sign for the minimum, I wonder?

[montestewart]

offensive rebounds which are worth much more to his team in added value.

I think you've explained this before, and I'm sure it's a good explanation, but I've forgotten. Why are offensive rebounds more valuable? I'm starting with the premise that, however the superior value of ORBs is defined, a DRB denies that superior ORB value to the opposing team, thus more or less equalizing the rebound values (and I know that's pretty basic, so help a brother out).

[Ruzious]

offensive rebounds which are worth much more to his team in added value.

I think you've explained this before, and I'm sure it's a good explanation, but I've forgotten. Why are offensive rebounds more valuable? I'm starting with the premise that, however the superior value of ORBs is defined, a DRB denies that superior ORB value to the opposing team, thus more or less equalizing the rebound values (and I know that's pretty basic, so help a brother out).

Fwiw, I'm more concerned that my TEAM prevents the opposition from getting offensive rebounds than I am in my team getting offensive rebounds. And I think most of the best teams operate that way. I don't know if that goes directly against PIF's premise, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't go with his premise.

[montestewart]

offensive rebounds which are worth much more to his team in added value.

I think you've explained this before, and I'm sure it's a good explanation, but I've forgotten. Why are offensive rebounds more valuable? I'm starting with the premise that, however the superior value of ORBs is defined, a DRB denies that superior ORB value to the opposing team, thus more or less equalizing the rebound values (and I know that's pretty basic, so help a brother out).

Fwiw, I'm more concerned that my TEAM prevents the opposition from getting offensive rebounds than I am in my team getting offensive rebounds. And I think most of the best teams operate that way. I don't know if that goes directly against PIF's premise, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't go with his premise.

When the Heat faced the Thunder in the Finals a few years back, it was often mentioned that the two teams were among the worst offensive rebounding teams in the league. Maybe that's not the norm, but it at least shows you can have a good team without good offensive rebounding. Personally, I like my team to get all the rebounds.

[payitforward]

offensive rebounds which are worth much more to his team in added value.

I think you've explained this before, and I'm sure it's a good explanation, but I've forgotten. Why are offensive rebounds more valuable? I'm starting with the premise that, however the superior value of ORBs is defined, a DRB denies that superior ORB value to the opposing team, thus more or less equalizing the rebound values (and I know that's pretty basic, so help a brother out).

Running statistical regressions on rebounding tells us that if player X doesn't get a rebound, there is a 100% chance that some other player, either on player X's team or on the other team, will get that rebound. Well... actually, we don't have to run any regressions to know that, do we?

But those regressions do tell us this: if player X doesn't get a defensive rebound, there is a 65% chance that some other player on his team will get that rebound. If he doesn't get an offensive rebound, there's only a 35% chance that one of his teammates will get that board; 65% of the time the opposing team will get it.

Only 2 things actually win basketball games: TS% and number of shots (number of FTAs also figures in, but much less). Why? Because to win, you have to score more points than the opponent, and those are the only ways you can do that!

If you have a lower TS% than the other team in a game, unless you take more shots than that team does there's no way you can rack up more points, no way you can win the game. The only way you take more shots is if you get offensive boards on your misses. Duh.

You only get an offensive board when your team misses a shot (bad for TS%); fortunately that O board gives you another shot (good for taking more shots than your opponent).

No matter what narrative anyone provides about why teams do this, that or the other thing, the above remains the case. Quite simply, there's no way around it. And that's what makes offensive boards a more valuable individual contribution (given the 35% / 65% spread of where the ball goes if you don't get that offensive board).

[payitforward]

Fwiw, I'm more concerned that my TEAM prevents the opposition from getting offensive rebounds than I am in my team getting offensive rebounds. And I think most of the best teams operate that way. I don't know if that goes directly against PIF's premise, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't go with his premise.

When the Heat faced the Thunder in the Finals a few years back, it was often mentioned that the two teams were among the worst offensive rebounding teams in the league. Maybe that's not the norm, but it at least shows you can have a good team without good offensive rebounding. Personally, I like my team to get all the rebounds.

I don't have a "premise." I just have data analysis done by people using SAS or some other statistical software. This is what it shows. If it showed something different, I'd be saying something different.

As to the Heat & Thunder, keep this in mind: the better a shooting team you are, the less it matters how good an offensive rebounding team you are. In fact, the better a shooting team you are, the harder it is to be a good offensive rebounding team -- think about it: you only get an offensive board when you miss a shot! Shoot a higher % and you have fewer chances to get offensive boards.

[doclinkin]

Fwiw, I'm more concerned that my TEAM prevents the opposition from getting offensive rebounds than I am in my team getting offensive rebounds. And I think most of the best teams operate that way. I don't know if that goes directly against PIF's premise, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't go with his premise.

When the Heat faced the Thunder in the Finals a few years back, it was often mentioned that the two teams were among the worst offensive rebounding teams in the league. Maybe that's not the norm, but it at least shows you can have a good team without good offensive rebounding. Personally, I like my team to get all the rebounds.

I don't have a "premise." I just have data analysis done by people using SAS or some other statistical software. This is what it shows. If it showed something different, I'd be saying something different.

As to the Heat & Thunder, keep this in mind: the better a shooting team you are, the less it matters how good an offensive rebounding team you are. In fact, the better a shooting team you are, the harder it is to be a good offensive rebounding team -- think about it: you only get an offensive board when you miss a shot! Shoot a higher % and you have fewer chances to get offensive boards.

In the case of the best defensive teams, offensive rebounding is de-emphasized as a consequence of focus on transition defense. Chances for offensive rebounds are more rare, its a better play to prevent free access to the basket at the other end.

[montestewart]

When the Heat faced the Thunder in the Finals a few years back, it was often mentioned that the two teams were among the worst offensive rebounding teams in the league. Maybe that's not the norm, but it at least shows you can have a good team without good offensive rebounding. Personally, I like my team to get all the rebounds.

I don't have a "premise." I just have data analysis done by people using SAS or some other statistical software. This is what it shows. If it showed something different, I'd be saying something different.

As to the Heat & Thunder, keep this in mind: the better a shooting team you are, the less it matters how good an offensive rebounding team you are. In fact, the better a shooting team you are, the harder it is to be a good offensive rebounding team -- think about it: you only get an offensive board when you miss a shot! Shoot a higher % and you have fewer chances to get offensive boards.

In the case of the best defensive teams, offensive rebounding is de-emphasized as a consequence of focus on transition defense. Chances for offensive rebounds are more rare, its a better play to prevent free access to the basket at the other end.

More of a level 1 discussion than I envisioned. No surprise that ORs would have more value to an offense than DRs, that better shooting teams have fewer ORs (Hmmm, does that make their ORs more or less valuable?), that top defending teams deemphasize ORs, that teams that score more points win games, etc.

Whether you look at ORs as extending the possession or creating a new possession, it's still putting the ball in the team's possession, just as a DRs or steals do. I was imagining a statistic regarding TS% following an OR vs. TS% following a DR, or something similar. I was imagining something that took transition defense and/or the opposing team's ORs into account. Not "there's fewer of them, thus each one is more valuable."

Where's Nivek when you need him? Maybe I just need to drink more coffee.

[doclinkin]

My understanding is that with an individual player ORs rank well as an indicator of athleticism and competitiveness. Especially in the frontcourt I suspect, if you can cross reference with defense.

But as a team measure ORs correlate with undisciplined and losing teams. For both reasons: the strongest of the four factors relating to a win is efficient scoring, and good shooting teams don't give up many putback chances because of that. They don't miss as much.

AND because disciplined teams don't allow fast break chances. Getting your bigman back to defend the interior is key. Having your guards impede the process of the ball down the court is key to allow the bigs time to get in position. Reckless pursuit of offensive rebounds is like gambling for steals. Ruins court balance and team defense.

That said. I think in an era of long ball gunning I suspect that may be changing somewhat. Having good backline rebounders who are opportunistic at snatching a long bounce off a missed three for a reset try may prove a useful strategy, if each can do so without ranging too far from their zone of responsibility. Gilbert and Larry Hughes used to collapse in the interior to try for rebounds, and their man would get free on the other end. But Stef Curry is too quick to see where the missed three is gonna bounce to and commonly swoops in for that reset without risking too much.

[closg00]

The Skins Robert Kelly makes the team as an undrafted Rookie, I wonder which undrafted rookies will be making an NBA roster this year.

[payitforward]

I don't have a "premise." I just have data analysis done by people using SAS or some other statistical software. This is what it shows. If it showed something different, I'd be saying something different.

As to the Heat & Thunder, keep this in mind: the better a shooting team you are, the less it matters how good an offensive rebounding team you are. In fact, the better a shooting team you are, the harder it is to be a good offensive rebounding team -- think about it: you only get an offensive board when you miss a shot! Shoot a higher % and you have fewer chances to get offensive boards.

In the case of the best defensive teams, offensive rebounding is de-emphasized as a consequence of focus on transition defense. Chances for offensive rebounds are more rare, its a better play to prevent free access to the basket at the other end.

More of a level 1 discussion than I envisioned. No surprise that ORs would have more value to an offense than DRs, that better shooting teams have fewer ORs (Hmmm, does that make their ORs more or less valuable?), that top defending teams deemphasize ORs, that teams that score more points win games, etc.

Whether you look at ORs as extending the possession or creating a new possession, it's still putting the ball in the team's possession, just as a DRs or steals do. I was imagining a statistic regarding TS% following an OR vs. TS% following a DR, or something similar. I was imagining something that took transition defense and/or the opposing team's ORs into account. Not "there's fewer of them, thus each one is more valuable."

Where's Nivek when you need him? Maybe I just need to drink more coffee.

You are right; it's a pretty basic fact that an offensive board contributes more to the team than a defensive board. Nor does that mean that you should go after every offensive board. Made 3-pointers contribute more to the team than made 2-pointers -- does that mean you should only take 3-point shots?

But what it does mean is that if I'm assessing the value of rebounding by two guys and they both get, say, 12 rebounds every 40 minutes, I can find out whose rebounding contributed more to his team by looking at which of them got more offensive rebounds.

Note that this would be true even if written by Nivek -- who will return when the season begins, I'm thinking. He's too smart to ignore his core audience just because his blog is getting more attention (a good thing, btw!). Smart enough that he knows the people you see on the way up, you see the same people on the way back down!

[tontoz]

When the Heat faced the Thunder in the Finals a few years back, it was often mentioned that the two teams were among the worst offensive rebounding teams in the league. Maybe that's not the norm, but it at least shows you can have a good team without good offensive rebounding. Personally, I like my team to get all the rebounds.

I don't have a "premise." I just have data analysis done by people using SAS or some other statistical software. This is what it shows. If it showed something different, I'd be saying something different.

As to the Heat & Thunder, keep this in mind: the better a shooting team you are, the less it matters how good an offensive rebounding team you are. In fact, the better a shooting team you are, the harder it is to be a good offensive rebounding team -- think about it: you only get an offensive board when you miss a shot! Shoot a higher % and you have fewer chances to get offensive boards.

In the case of the best defensive teams, offensive rebounding is de-emphasized as a consequence of focus on transition defense. Chances for offensive rebounds are more rare, its a better play to prevent free access to the basket at the other end.

Exactly. When an offensive player goes for an offensive rebound and doesn't get it he will be trailing the play in transition.

When I was following the Hawks I used to watch Childress crash the offensive boards all the time. When he got one for an easy putback the announcers would praise him and it would help his stats. But most of the time he was lagging far behind the play in transition and someone else would have to cover his man.

[payitforward]

In the case of the best defensive teams, offensive rebounding is de-emphasized as a consequence of focus on transition defense. Chances for offensive rebounds are more rare, its a better play to prevent free access to the basket at the other end.

Exactly. When an offensive player goes for an offensive rebound and doesn't get it he will be trailing the play in transition.

When I was following the Hawks I used to watch Childress crash the offensive boards all the time. When he got one for an easy putback the announcers would praise him and it would help his stats. But most of the time he was lagging far behind the play in transition and someone else would have to cover his man.

This piety gets repeated over and over as if it was in some holy book somewhere, and there was no need to check whether it was true.

It isn't true in the slightest. How shall we measure "the best defensive teams?" By differential over their opponents? This would recognize that defense in the NBA isn't like defense in, for example, the NFL, where 2 different teams, 1 offensive & 1 defensive, take the field to play separately. If we use that measure, the offensive rebounding % of the 4 top teams in the NBA is @11% higher than that of the 4 worst teams in the NBA.

Perhaps it would be preferable just to look at points allowed as the measure of defense. In that case the top 4 teams post an offensive rebound percentage of about 10% higher than the 4 worst teams.

Ok, how about the top half vs. the bottom half? You would expect this to be much closer, and it is. But the top half is still slightly better: using differential as the measure, the top 15 teams post a .238 offensive rebounding %. The bottom 15 post .233. Using points allowed as the measure, the top 15 teams post a .238 offensive rebounding %. The bottom 15 post .237.

In other words, specifically and definitively, what Doc and Tontoz say above is simply not true.