The sample for the on-court numbers is tiny, yes, but so far it doesn't look like acquiring Shaq is doing the Phoenix Suns much good.
« The Dread Base | Main | Single Sex »
Shaq So Far
03 Mar 2008 12:13 pm
Comments (64)
Ha... Kerr gambled and lost. I think the chances of the Suns not making the playoffs, given the West's competitiveness, are 50/50 at best right now. I've never been a Shaq fan so I take a bit of pleasure in seeing him hurt a team.
I wonder how much of this has been skewed by the competition PHX has played - of the 6 games, 4 were against LAL, BOS, DET and NO. That said, they also lost to Philly. It appears to me that they fixed their rebounding problem - but the expected hit on their offense and especially perimeter defense by trading away Marion is worse than they may have anticipated.
On a related note, I don't think Kidd has helped Dallas as much as anticipated either.
"I wonder how much of this has been skewed by the competition PHX has played - of the 6 games, 4 were against LAL, BOS, DET and NO."
Why would that skew a +/- number?
1) It's early. It's not unusual for a new player to gel with his new team. Stats will probably improve after a while.
2) The small sample in the ON COURT category begs a few questions: Were the three games included here against good teams or against patsies? Was someone else on the team injured or playing below par? Were these on the road or at home? Etc.
I'm not saying the Shaq trade will pan out (I, myself, am still mystified by it), but these stats don't prove squat.
1) It's early. It's not unusual for a new player to gel with his new team. Stats will probably improve after a while.
2) The small sample in the ON COURT category begs a few questions: Were the three games included here against good teams or against patsies? Was someone else on the team injured or playing below par? Were these on the road or at home? Etc.
I'm not saying the Shaq trade will pan out (I, myself, am still mystified by it), but these stats don't prove squat.
Why would that skew a +/- number?
Why wouldn't it? If most of the off-court time is against inferior competition, the off court time will inherently look better, no?
"On a related note, I don't think Kidd has helped Dallas as much as anticipated either."
I thought both PHX and DAL were going to be vulnerable in the playoff race post-trade.
Even if the trades end up working out, integrating a core piece in February is hard.
(It's easier in the case of Pau with LAX or Rasheed with DET because while those players are important, they are mere extenders of a system that didn't have to be fundamentally revamped. Not so for PHX or DAL.)
"Why wouldn't it? If most of the off-court time is against inferior competition, the off court time will inherently look better, no?"
Methinks you are confused in a fundamental way here about the meaning of +/-...
I'm amazed how much the mainstream sports media let PHX off the hook for this trade. It seemed like writers were afraid to come out against Shaq. Sorry, but if you were to name the top 5 players least suited to play in PHX, Shaq would undoubtedly be on that list. Terrible trade. I'd bet these numbers will continue.
Also, the schedule shouldn't matter. If they played the best five teams in the league, the +/- still shows the same effect. The only way it could be skewed is if he was only getting minutes against the good teams, and sitting on the bench against the bad. That hasn't been the case.
Methinks you are confused in a fundamental way here about the meaning of +/-...
Could be! Although these appear to be on court/off court numbers that Matthew posted, not +/-.
as petey notes, and as i noted back at the time of the trade, there are very few examples of a team making a trade for a starter at the deadline and going on to win it all.
plus i agree with all the critiques of the aging shaq and the phoenix style of play.
but sheesh: talk about irrelevantly small sample size. this tells us absolutely nothing; maybe the stats between the trade and the end of the season will be somewhat meaningful, but these aren't.
The only way it could be skewed is if he was only getting minutes against the good teams, and sitting on the bench against the bad. That hasn't been the case.
Um, what?
Shaq has been getting minutes for the Suns in only 6 games so far, 4 of which were against teams in the top 5 teams in the league.
The Suns games in which Shaq did not play (and therefore got no minutes for the Suns) included every game prior to the trade.
But, as I said to Petey, I could be wrong about what the stats mean. I'm not an expert. Perhaps someone could explain to me what the "Minutes" column in the above chart means, which shows 144 minutes with Shaq on court and 2629 minutes with Shaq off court. I took it to mean a comparison of the Suns play with Shaw on the court (24 minutes per game over the last 6 games) and with Shaq off the court (48 minutes per game prior to the trade and 24 minutes per game in the last 6 games).
I'm amazed how much the mainstream sports media let PHX off the hook for this trade. It seemed like writers were afraid to come out against Shaq.
I think there is another force at work here, actually. I think a lot of sportswriters actually felt the trade might work. Many of them actually thought it was a good idea. It seemed pretty crazy to me, but there you go. I thought getting good post defense in a trade for Amare would have been more helpful during the Nash era, but you can't trade away a player that young for an aging veteran and stay viable over the next 10 years. Plus, there was the media fallout impact of trading away a name like Amare.
Isn't this criticism kinda funny coming from a guy whose school is (a) known as the Special Olympics of college basketball and (b) Is allegedly under investigation by the NCAA ??
See http://collegebasketball.rivals.com/content.asp?SID=1146&CID=781264
"The all-time coaching rogue heard the news and couldn't decide whether to be stunned or entertained.
"Harvard?" Jerry Tarkanian kept saying with a laugh. "Harvard's cheating?"
So alleges The New York Times, which Sunday unveiled one of the most unlikely, telling and, at least to some of us, humorous potential college basketball scandals by bringing to light a number of questionable practices by no less than Harvard Basketball. "
A lot of that has to do with turnovers and Nash laying an egg for the last few games. Shaq has actually done some good -- it's the people around him that aren't doing their jobs.
The Suns look even worse with Shaq than I thought they would, and I thought the trade was a terrible idea.
When the Suns lost to Philly the other day, I thought, "well, if course they'll have a hard time with Philly. They don't have anybody who can guard Iguodala." But Philly sucks! Half the teams in the league have a swingman as good as Iguodala. Without Marion, they can't guard any of them. They can't guard Dirk, they can't guard Duncan. They can't even guard quick point guards without Marion. Jesus, what a stupid trade.
The Mavs don't look that bad with Kidd, though. Losing to LA in overtime at Staples isn't a real bad result, and I don't think Devin Harris and Diop would have won it for them. You can already see their offense improving with Kidd. Hell, he even made Dampier look good against the Lakers. Terry was getting all kinds of open looks.
I'd still put LA at the top and the Spurs just below them, but Dallas probably has the 3rd-best shot of anybody at coming out of the west. They're right there with Utah and I think they're better than Phoenix or New Orleans.
Also, if Houston keeps kicking this much ass, I don't see Denver making the playoffs. I almost feel bad for Petey. First Edwards, now this. But seriously, it should be obvious that you can't build a team around 2 shoot-first gunners.
All hail Bobby Jackson! Rockets 4-ever!
Al,
I was just about to go into a long explanation, but you are right. I didn't notice that they were taking into account the minutes before he got on the team. That changes everything. My apologies. That chart loses all meaning.
Al,
Yes, I do think that you are confused as to what the numbers mean. It doesn't take in to account the games before the trade. Let's say that the Suns next ten games are against the best 10 teams in the league. That shouldn't skew the +/- at all because its taking into account the Suns' success when he's in the game as opposed to when he's on the bench. Now let's suppose their next ten games are split between the best five teams and the worst five teams. The only way the +/- is going to be skewed is if he's getting big minutes against the good teams and few minutes against the bad teams.
Speaking of Ivy League basketball (as Don Williams is above), let me get in a little praise for Obama. His brother-in-law did a very good job coaching this year.
That was the post I was going to write until I became enlightened. Sorry again!
I think there is another force at work here, actually. I think a lot of sportswriters actually felt the trade might work. Many of them actually thought it was a good idea.
Are you kidding? Most sportswriters panned the trade. Shaq said he'd prove all of the haters wrong, but hasn't thusfar. In fact, the only defense for the trade I've seen was the very mild, "They weren't going to win with the team as constructed* and Nash is getting long in the tooth. Shaq shores up their rebounding weakness and gives them a chance in the playoffs. This isn't a bad trade in that it improves chemistry and gives them a chance when they had zero chance earlier."
* See atrocious, sub-.500 record vs. West playoff teams with Marion
Methinks you are confused in a fundamental way here about the meaning of +/-...
Yeah, I'll take this bait as well - it basically says that they're scoring fewer points per possession (less effective ball movement), as well as giving up more field goals (Shaq not getting back on defense perhaps?). As a snapshot, this 6-game average is against teams with greater ability to score and defend than the average of all teams the Suns played before the trade, unless it's assumed that all prior games were played against a 2:1 or better ratio of good versus bad teams. This could be the case, considering their conference, but that would imply a grossly unfair strength of schedule for Phoenix, as those are exceptionally good teams in that 6-game stretch.
So alleges The New York Times, which Sunday unveiled one of the most unlikely, telling and, at least to some of us, humorous potential college basketball scandals by bringing to light a number of questionable practices by no less than Harvard Basketball.
Did you read the NYT article? The "questionable" practices seemed to amount to Harvard lowering its admissions standards slightly, having a coach work out with recruits immediately before he was technically hired (thus when he was technically still a "booster"), and the coach once approaching a recruit's family in a grocery store. Big freaking deal.
How can Steve Kerr possibly know that the trade would improve chemistry? Unless you were at absolute rock-bottom, that would be impossible to know. Also, I certainly do not agree that the trade was panned by 'most' sportswriters. Sure there were some who did, but the majority of the publications I read were behind the deal. Obviously, it was the 'sabermetric' types like John Hollinger who ridiculed it. But all of them should have been ridiculing it. Shaq is one of the worst fits imaginable. They might not even make the playoffs now. And if they do, I don't see them beating anybody.
If they're struggling so much with Shaq, doesn't that say something about how good the team really was before Shaq? I mean, it's not like Shaq has been playing that poorly in Phoenix and it's sure not the case that Marion has produced any significant improvement in Miami. If Marion really covered up that many weaknesses on the team, they were never going to win a title any way.
Mike
I'm amazed how much the mainstream sports media let PHX off the hook for this trade.
Wha? The MSM roasted Kerr for this. The negative-positive percentage breakdown must've been at least 80-20.
That said, a few notes:
*-Steve Nash is a bad defender, but I never realized just how terrible he is until Marion wasn’t around to clean up his mistakes.
*-Although it’s tempting to the blame the Suns’ woes solely on Shaq’s presence, but slumps by Nash (ball-handling) plus Bell and Hill ( perimeter shooting) aren’t at all helping the transition.
*-At the risk of whining, this is by far the toughest stretch of the schedule to date.
*-When the trade was made, I at first hated it - then saw its merits. Despite the poor early returns, I’m not backing away from my support. The pre-trade Suns were not a title contender, so Kerr had to roll the dice. Whether the post-trade Suns can raise a banner, I’m not ready to give an answer either way.
Sooner or later all of the wanna-be sabremetricians or whatever are going to have to answer for the fact that we haven't seen any predictive advantage to the new metrics over any of the older, more conventional ways of measuring a player's success.
Al,
You're right. It's the other people in the thread who can't read a table. (Though in fairness, what they think the chart is would be more informative than the actual chart.) And that said, Shaq has still not had a positive effect even if you control for the opponents skill level.
Ben
Are you kidding? Most sportswriters panned the trade. Shaq said he'd prove all of the haters wrong, but hasn't thusfar.
Well, I guess I read/watched different commentators. Many of the trade reviews I read put the Suns deal as 2nd or 3rd best among trades this year. I think the initial reaction was negative, but these guys have hit on the storyline of, "it's a risk they had to take". Hilariously, the self-appointed VP of Common Sense, aka the Sports Guy, has come out strongly in favor of this trade.
For one, this chart doesn't really show anything. Why have this chart when its comparing minutes before he got there? Show me his +/- since he's been there. Also, I don't think the 'MSM' came out in great numbers against this trade. On ESPN.com and NBA live, they seemed to like it, or at least reserve judgement. I don't understand when people say they weren't a contender this year. They probably would have won it last year, if it wasn't for the suspension against SA and they have the SAME TEAM. This Shaq trade sucks.
The pre-trade Suns were not a title contender, so Kerr had to roll the dice.
Use better dice next time. Shaq's a horrible fit for PHX, and most of us knew that he would be a horrible fit for PHX. The confounding factor is Steve Kerr, whom almost everyone regards as pretty smart. I think that's what allowed some people to talk themselves into believing in the trade.
Kidd--I hated that trade, too. But this weekend forced me to recognize that Kidd can push the ball with the best of them, and that results in easy points. Ten easy points can make a big difference in the game. I still don't like the trade, but I'm no longer sure that my longstanding dislike for Kidd the player isn't the most important factor in my decision.
I don't fear PHX or DAL, anymore, though.
Speaking of Simmons, in his column about why he should be the GM of the Bucks, he says he'd draft guys with a proven record in college, not guys who "look good posting up a chair" in workouts. OK. Then I clicked over to his latest mailbag column, which has like 2 or 3 jokes at the expense of J.J. Reddick and Adam Morrison. Anybody see the contradiction there?
Freddie, adjusted +/- predictions were discussed on this blog only a couple months ago.
http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/12/score_one_for_adjusted.php
Simmons sucks on the NBA these days, and has for probably two years. Hollinger is the only worthwhile person over at ESPN.com. I find that astonishing.
and it's sure not the case that Marion has produced any significant improvement in Miami.
Actually, if you look at the same chart for Marion as Matthew posed for Shaq, it appears that Miami's defense has improved when Marion is on the court (although the offense is the same).
I have no idea what MIA's win-loss record is since they acquired Marion, though.
mpowell,
Yeah, I was surprised that Bill Simmons came out in favor of the trade. I think he just felt the need to do so after making fun of GM's inactivity at the trade deadline in years past. But overall, I agree with you that most writers eventually thought this was an great trade for the Suns. Which is laughable. Wilbon came on PTI ridiculing it until he realized that he was one of the only writers to do so. He should have stuck to his guns. The Suns are toast.
SCMT, if you have a "longstanding dislike for Kidd the player," you need to have your head examined. Now, Kidd the person, the reviews aren't great. But Kidd the player is everything a point guard should be. Any team he's on is going to play beautiful basketball. For a guy who's never seemed that bright off the court, he's some kind of basketball savant. He's also got a great style for longetivity, at least on offense. He doesn't depend much on quickness, he just picks the defense apart, and he uses his size, which ain't going away.
As far as the Suns, in what sense were they "not a contender" when they've been in the conference finals 2 of the last 3 years, and they lost to the eventual conference champ all 3 years?
The Suns have been poorly managed in a few ways. Their depth sucks, and they've somehow let all of their outside shooters slip away, except for Bell, Barbosa and Nash. They're not totally done for, but I don't like their chances this year, and this year is it for them, unless they decide to start actually competing for free agents and draft picks.
Perhaps Steve Kerr knew he had no choice but to deal Marion before the end of the year, and a broken-down former superstar was the best he could get. Still, it's early vindication for those of us who thought the trade made no sense at all.
On a (slightly) related topic, how about Kobe Bryant's criticism of "No Country for Old Men?"
He said he "couldn't tell what it was about, other than people just shooting each other."
http://myespn.go.com/blogs/truehoop?archiveId=30
Amen. Kid has a future in TV film criticism, if he ever wearies of basketball.
I think Simmons still knows his NBA more than most, but you're right, Hollinger is the best NBA writer ESPN has. He's excellent, and shows things that most writers don't even address. Such as rookie Carl Landry. I haven't even seen other writers talk about him. Hollinger breaks it down.
But this weekend forced me to recognize that Kidd can push the ball with the best of them, and that results in easy points.
I didn't see that whole LA game, only the 4th quarter, but he bricked a number of shots down the stretch. Even the one shot he made - the layup where he got fouled (he also double dribbled, but never mind that), he bricked the foul shot that would have tied it with under a minute to play - he's lucky he got bailed out by Dirk's 3 and Phil's refusal to foul prior to Dirk shooting the 3.
I think that's what Avery was thinking about the night before when he benched Kidd in the final 30 seconds of the game against SA (for which Avery was - rightly - roasted by the press).
I don't see it from Hollinger. His writing is all about PER, in the same way that Berri's writing is all about WP48 (or whatever the stat is that Berri loves). Hollinger is just way too fixed on PER. (I like PER, BTW, but you can't base your entire writing around it.)
"Actually, if you look at the same chart for Marion as Matthew posed for Shaq, it appears that Miami's defense has improved when Marion is on the court (although the offense is the same).
I have no idea what MIA's win-loss record is since they acquired Marion, though."
Miami is 2-8 in their last 10 games.
Mike
I really don't get the Lakers not fouling. Van Gundy said Phil Jackson "doesn't believe in fouling in that situation." How can one of the best coaches in the NBA just "not believe" in what pretty much everybody agrees is the right strategy? It's like saying you don't believe in shooting a 3 when you're down 3 with 5 seconds left.
How good was Van Gundy? He called the "Phil doesn't like to foul" immediately before Phil opts not to foul (and Dirk his the 3). And he also called the play immediately before that - when Brandon Bass was next to Kobe to rebound the free throw. JVG said he doesn't like Bass there because Kobe is likely too quick for Bass and would get the offensive board off a miss... exactly what happened.
That's quality analysis.
But Kidd the player is everything a point guard should be. Any team he's on is going to play beautiful basketball.
A lot of it is personal, and admittedly counter-productive, pique. I can't stand heavy point guards. I expect knee problems and slowness. That's not really an issue for Kidd--or, it appears, for some of the other big guards--so that's not fair. (And little guys go down a lot, too. See KJ.) And I hate point guards that can't shoot a lick. (That one I stand by.) But the difference as he runs the break is visible.
I do wonder whether it's going to have a negative effect on the Mavs' rebounding, as players start to leak down court to get Kidd passes.
As far as the Suns, in what sense were they "not a contender" when they've been in the conference finals 2 of the last 3 years, and they lost to the eventual conference champ all 3 years?
In the sense that, pre-trade, Phoenix had lost 10 of 15 games to the other Western Conference playoff contenders.
How good was Van Gundy?
Yeah, VG is unreal. I like him as an analyst enough that I hope he never gets another NBA job. I can't think of anyone who has been as good or even close to it. He even makes Mark Jackson less annoying.
"You're right. It's the other people in the thread who can't read a table. (Though in fairness, what they think the chart is would be more informative than the actual chart.)"
Bingo!
I was most definitely wrong. I thought the +/- was just referring to the games with Shaquille in uniform, which indeed would be more informative.
Mea culpa. Al had this one.
How can Steve Kerr possibly know that the trade would improve chemistry? Unless you were at absolute rock-bottom, that would be impossible to know.
Because Marion was unhappy and very vocal about it and was (rightly or wrongly) perceived as a cancer in the locker room. Shaq was thrilled to be on a relevant team and have people willing to pay attention to him beyond "The Big Washed-up" and "The Big Injury". It hasn't worked, but it doesn't matter what happens in the regular season (this is true of the Kidd trade as well), the proof is in the playoffs.
I think Jeff Van Gundy and Hubie Brown are, without a doubt, the best color commentators for the NBA. They are actually my two favorite color commentators in any sport. I feel like they actually do bring so much knowledge that an average fan would never even think about.
TooManySteves- I'm not so sure that every coach agrees that fouling is the right thing to do there. That's always one of those things that they talk about being split evenly between the coaches.(Although I definitely agree they opt to foul more often) Right up there with whether or not to cover the guy inbounding the ball.
This from the guy who was one step from proclaiming San Antonio dead, five weeks ago.
Gimme a break.
Mo, I think it definitely matters what happens in the regular season. Hell, if the Suns keep sucking they could even miss the playoffs. That's not likely, but what if they get in and they face the Lakers or Spurs on the road in round 1? That's a little bit different than playing Houston at home.
I'm kind of amused that some people perceived the media response to the Suns trade to be negative. I'm not saying they're wrong, just that from the sources I typically read, I got a much different impression.
I agree that Hollinger is the best basketball commentator at ESPN and that is sad. He's better than Berri though, b/c his analysis is not as limited to PER as Berri is to wages of wins. But basically, sportswriters suck. They just do. Simmons is popular b/c he's funny. Hell, that's why I read him. It sure isn't for the insightful analysis. The only media personality that actually impresses me consistently with the quality of his analysis is the guy who does the pre-draft analysis for the NFL network. I forget his name right now, but he is awesome.
I can't believe people are blaming Nash for this. Have you seen how much having a giant blob of Shaq parked in the lane screws with Nash's penetrate, weave, and pass game?
JVG is The Man as a commentator. In addition to his amazing bball knowledge, he is very witty. Yesterday the announcers were discussing Jack Nicholson in "A Few Good Men", to which JVG replied, "We had a few Code Reds on teams I coached."
Among NBA writers, Hollinger is the best at statistical analysis. Charley Rosen is the best for analyzing on-court action.
"Have you seen how much having a giant blob of Shaq parked in the lane screws with Nash's penetrate, weave, and pass game?"
And that's the fundamental thing the Shaq trade was trying to address, because that game has repeatedly failed in the playoffs. It's a very entertaining way to play but it doesn't get the job done in the crunch.
The Suns have got to figure out different ways to play if they want to win the title. I remember watching a game when Amare was injured and Nash was trying to run the exact same pick-and-role plays with Kurt Thomas, to little success.
Mike
"Charley Rosen is the best for analyzing on-court action."
Rosen is worth reading, but he's got some pretty fundamental flaws in his approach.
i'm just rejoining the thread because of this outbreak of van gundy love: when van gundy was the knicks coach (and i didn't follow him as closely in houston), i admired how he was one of the very few coaches in the game whose players actually improved their games under him.
plus, when i would see his post-game interviews on espn, he had always watched as coach the same game as i watched as fan.
so good for him that more people are discovering his keen basketball mind and wit (as for predicting plays: when i lived in boston and cousy and heinsohn did the local coverage, they were amazingly accurate in calling the play out of the timeout - heinsohn was a completely different and better announcer when he was doing local coverage and cousy's knowledge and court sense were always superb).
because that game has repeatedly failed in the playoffs.
Well, I think they would have beat the Spurs last year if the league office hadn't absolutely screwed them with a ruling that I still think is scandalous. So I think they gave up too soon.
obviously, the people at the suns -- who likely would know better than you -- didn't think it was just the suspension that kept them from winning against the spurs. but the whining about it remains entertaining (i don't recall MJ or magic or bird or any other great having to whine about how they was robbed, instead of getting it done on the floor).
I'm not the one whining about the suspension, but obviously, the people at the Suns don't know better than me how to run their team, because they thought trading Marion for Shaq would be a good idea. They thought giving away Kurt Thomas and James Jones were good ideas, too, so no, they don't know better than me.
Yes, the Spurs were a little better than the Suns last year. But there's an element of luck in all of this. If your team almost beats the Spurs, and you keep your guys together, maybe next year you'll beat them, just because of the chance factor. If you win 30 games, you've got to make changes. If you lose in the first round every year, you probably need to make changes. But if you make the conference finals all the time, you don't need to do a damn thing.
you're right, the shaq trade actually negates everything i said about phx being in the know. i was willing to cut kerr some slack just cause he seemed pretty bright as an announcer, but marion for shaq still mystifies me. also agree with your basic point re good teams not having much reason to change what ain't broke (which is why i found the kidd trade mystifying as well). my bad.
Comments closed March 17, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Good catch.
Posted by Petey | March 3, 2008 12:25 PM