Does anyone out there who's seen more Golden State games this season then I have no why Andris Biedrins only plays 26.6 minutes per game. It seems to me that if I had a good young big man on my roster and no backup center, that I'd give him some more burn than that. After all, the Warriors score more points while giving up fewer points when Biedrins is playing and that whole "better offense and better defense" thing is usually what you're looking for in a player.
« MLK's Radicalism | Main | The Best Years of My Life »
The Biedrins Factor
04 Apr 2008 03:23 pm
Comments (55)
Biedrins looks awful against many teams and frequently appears as if he's just learned what basketball is that very day.
Unless things have changed radically in the last few months, they're desperate to resign him (and Ellis).
What I'd like to know is: what the hell happened to Matt Barnes? Why is he getting less than 15 minutes a game now?
I think Biedrins may actually be more effective than he looks, and Nelson is certainly a better judge than I am; I suspect it may have to do with (a) his terrible free throw shooting and even more (b) a tendency to get in foul trouble.
Also, I believe he had surgery or something and needed time to work back into playing shape.
Biedrins fouls per 48 minutes are 6.2 so he does get in foul trouble a lot which has the potential to both put Biedrins out of the game and put the opposition in the bonus and at the free throw line -- even after Biedrins has left the court.
This is wild-arsed speculation but I'd venture because Biedrins is so young and plays the post he requires a bit more coaching and gets tired playing long minutes at NBA intensity so something close to 30 minutes is all that he is capable of playing at the moment because of his strength, fitness, and maturity. For comparison, Roy Hibbert is the same age as Biedrins and playing the same minutes at Georgetown in a 32 game season.
On many nights, Nelson likes to spread the floor with five guys who can shoot 3s, and Biedrins' offense all happens inside of 6 feet. He really should play more because he has really picked up his rebounding, and is very clever finishing near the basket.
Re Matt Barnes: Last year was a fluke. Barnes makes 2-3 boneheaded plays each game, and Azuibuke does everything a little better than Barnes without the mistakes.
He did have an appendectomy this season, so perhaps that has something to do with it. When I had my appendix removed, I missed a whole lot of school recovering from it.
Maybe it's because the people who run the team there in Oakland actually watch the games? This is the perfect example of the limits of these sabremetrics.
Yo, Freddie, no need to get so rude; that's why I asked the question. I've only seen a couple of GSW games this season.
He did have an appendectomy this season, so perhaps that has something to do with it. When I had my appendix removed, I missed a whole lot of school recovering from it.
I hate to be that guy... but shouldn't this sentence be rewritten: "Does anyone out there who's seen more Golden State games this season then I have no why Andris Biedrins only plays 26.6 minutes per game."
Perhaps as:
"Does anyone out there, who's seen more Golden State games this season than I, know why Andris Biedrins only plays 26.6 minutes per game."
An explanation found on the web about Biedrins lack of playing time from a guy who doesn't want him re-signed:
Anyway, I moved away from the blogosphere and asked a real expert. That's right, Dad, I have my own sources now, and I'm keeping their identities secret because I'm a journalist of principle. I asked said source if he/she thought the Warriors should resign Andris Biedrins this summer, and he/she told me this: "He does stuff Nellie doesn't always value (play big, be big, play defense) but Nellie likes him enough and Nellie rarely likes big men who can't shoot. So there's value. How do you replace that guy if they lose him? I dunno. Nellie would say with Brandan Wright, but I don't think (Chris) Mullin would agree with that. He'd say: Play them both. So would I. Nellie disagrees."
And so do I, Dad. Here's why. Mullin just picked up Nelson's option for next year, meaning Nelson's probably gonna be the coach next season. As long as Nelson's the coach, Mullin will make moves that please him - basically, Nelson is the general manager. And Nellie's not that wild about Biedrins. Here's what we know about Nelson. He has a history of not playing centers. Nelson plays Biedrins only 25 minutes a game. Thursday night against the Suns he didn't even start the Latvian, choosing the smaller Al Harrington instead. Nelson wants Andris to be a role player. When he's in the game, Nelson wants him to guard centers, block shots, rebound, set screens, and dunk. That's it.
When Biedrins becomes a free agent this summer, Mullin is going to have to pay $60 million over 6 years to keep him. It would be inexcusable for Mullin to spend $60 mil on a role player, especially when Brandan Wright will take over his role next season. Don't believe me? I'll explain.
(Reparagraphed out of laziness.) And his dad disagrees, arguing that good, not great, NBA centers are as rare as hens' teeth.
Sorry, MY, didn't mean to be rude-- was aiming for a certain tone and apparently failed to achieve it. My apologies.
Barnes has struggled all year, and he was in Nellie's doghouse until just a few weeks ago, when Pietrus got hurt. I'm not really sure why. He just didn't have the same fire he had last year, although he's looked a little better recently.
There are a couple of reasons Biedrins only plays 26 minutes a game. One is foul trouble -- he averages 3.4 fouls a game in just 26 minutes. Then there's the free throws, so they are many situations where he has to sit. Another reason is that he can't handle the ball or shoot from outside of 6 feet, so having him on the floor screws up what the Warriors are usually trying to do offensively, which is create chaos with 5 guys who can drive and shoot. Nellie also wants mismatches, so he plays Biedrins when the other team goes small. When they played PHX a few weeks back, every time Shaq sat, Biedrins would go in. I know the numbers show that they're better with Biedrins on the floor, but from the games I've seen, Biedrins seems to play more against weaker teams. When the Warriors are playing Dallas or SA or Phx or somebody, they seem more likely to go small.
Freddie, you didn't miss too badly. I, obviously different than Matt, interpreted your post as a shot at statheads generally, not Matt specifically. This is only now becoming more common in basketball, but we've (meaning statheads and non-statheads) been going at it for years in baseball.
And I'd reserve the term sabermetrics for baseball only, as its name derives from the Society for American Baseball Research (SABR).
The appendectomy has taken a bite out of his minutes this year and he's definitely been less effective since returning. He also has a tendency to pick up fouls in bunches, though he's improving in this area over previous years.
Freddie, your description was certainly apt for his first season, but he's been much less clueless lately. He's got great hands for a big man and has developed a good relationship with Monta Ellis of late, which bodes well for the future.
My fantasy team agrees with Matthew's puzzlement at this.
I haven't seen many GSW games either, but from my limited experience, I gotta agree with the theory that Nellie doesn't like non-shooters - he believes in having 5 guys who can shoot on the floor.
I don't buy the "he gets in foul trouble a lot" explanation. After all, the last two games (losses vs SAS and DAL) he only had two fouls per game and still only played 24 and 16 minutes. And this is doubly odd in that Golden State got absolutely hammered on the boards in both games. You'd think Nellie would play him when GS is losing the rebounding battle so decisively.
And he's been back from the appendicitis for almost a month, and has played 30 minutes in a game only once in that time period.
I think in the end, it is simply that Nellie isn't a very good coach. He's good enough to get a big time first round upset once in a while, but you are never getting a consistent winner out of him.
Because Nellie would rather Harringon and Jackson go collectively 2-25 than try to work the ball into the paint.
uh because Don Nelson hates tall people not named Manute Bol?
To support Al's theory, it may be for the same reason that Avery Johnson only played Dampier 12 minutes in the Dallas loss to GS on Sunday (and limited Dampier's playing time in the playoff loss to GS last year) - he's not a very good coach.
I watch an average of one GS game per year, so this is a wild guess, but perhaps his minutes are being managed to keep him on the floor as a mis-match? Perhaps the Warriors look better when he's playing because he only plays when he creates a substantial problem for the opposng team.
I don't know. What does Dampier give you against GS? You don't need low post defense, and you're going to be getting all the rebounds already. Now a big man who can score in the paint... that's how you punish GS.
he's been back from the appendicitis for almost a month, and has played 30 minutes in a game only once in that time period.
I think it's remarkable that he was able to return to playing so soon after having the surgery. 24 years ago when mine was removed, I missed the last couple months of school recovering, but then again, my appendectomy was complicated by a rupture.
The surgery cuts through abdominal muscles, which are actually pretty vital to a basketball player, especially one whose position requires him to block shots. At the very least, it seems justifiably cautious to shorten his minutes as a result of the surgery.
Nellie isn't a very good coach? Al, that's way crazier than you saying Dubya is a pretty good president.
Just look at what Nellis has done to that team. Yes, the trade helped, but the trade happened because Nellie could see that DunMurphy sucked. In case you haven't noticed, they're on pace to win about 50 games this year. Even if they miss the playoffs, that's a great season.
Nellie understands the game on a level that many coaches just don't. For example, if a key guy has 3 or 4 or even 5 fouls, Nellie won't automatically bench him. That foul-trouble benching is one of the dumbest moves in basketball -- the best way to get maximum minutes out of the guy is to leave him in the game. Nellie also understands the concept of true shooting % -- it's better to consistenly take a lot of 3s, even if you're cold, as long as you can shoot them at about 35% or better. Most of all, Nellie understands that you can't play good basketball if you're constantly afraid of getting benched for missing shots. Missing a good shot isn't a mistake, it's just a miss. Passing up a good shot, now that's a mistake.
Craigo is right. Nellie's system thrives on mismatches. Harrington, Pietrus and Captain Jack wouldn't be as good as they are if they weren't matched up so often with big men, and the Warriors wouldn't get those mismatches if Biedrins played more.
That said, I'm glad we have Biedrins and I hope we can keep him and build around him and Monta for the future (and hopefully, Brandon Wright). We really need him right now because he's the only rebounder on the team, apart from Baron. God, if Harrington could rebound like an average 4-man ...
Damp gives you interior defense and blocked shots, and stops the parade of layups by Baron, Monta, and Jackson. It forces GS to jack up more shots from the outside. Damp was +12 in those 12 minutes he played on Sunday. Dallas was outrebounded by GS on Sunday 46-37!
Biedrins will be signed by the Warriors. They will lose Michael Pietres who has been playing very well, but has an injured groin that has kept him out of the last few games. Despite the fact that Ellis, Davis, and Jackson can drive to the basket and once there either shoot or drop the ball to Biedrins, the Warriors take alot of (some would say too many) 3's. But that is the Warriors. There has been criticism of Nellie, particularly with the last two losses, for his failure to play more of Brandon Wright who because of his long reach can shot blook and disrupt shots on defense along with being able to shoot fairly accurately close to the basket. Nellie does not like to play rookies. Wright when in produces, but still is taken out I think much too soon by Nellie. As stunning as Jackson can be with his clutch 3's, taking over games as Davis does also, and defense, his 3 for 15 shooting can be grating. Harrington takes the threes too, and runs hot and cold. He is not a rebounder, but has more meat on himself than Wright. I would favor sitting him down more and playing more Wright. Ellis almost always shoots over 50-55%. takes fewer threes can drive to the basket as well as pull up within the 3 point line and automatically make a two. Biedrens had a laperoscopy procedure to remove his appendix and after a ten day layoff is in fine fiddle now. As much as I like and root for the Warriors, if they make the playoffs, they will probably lose their first series. Ver Vais?
I don't know. What does Dampier give you against GS? You don't need low post defense, and you're going to be getting all the rebounds already.
Except that in the game that blah is referencing (Dallas at Golden State), Golden State actually beat Dallas off the boards by 46-37, and in particular Biendrins played 29 minutes and went for 16 and 14. Dampier, meanwhile, played only 12 minutes - yet Damp was +12 in those 12 minutes and was the only Dallas player who had a positive +/- in the game! A truly puzzling decision.
Nellie would rather be a mad genius than a conventional basketball coach. Yeah, he wants to win. But he'd rather coach a winning small-ball team than a championship conventional team. Defending and rebounding bore him.
His typical explanation that he only tries to get the best out of his personnel simply doesn't hold water, seeing as over time he's turned every single team he's coached since Milwaukee into a small-ball team.
For instance, the Mavs were very successful starting Shawn Bradley (and Bradley, despite his poor reputation, had an excellent +- rating) but Nellie of course soured on him, just as he soured on the similar Dampier later on. Nowitzki ended up playing an awful lot of center during the Nellie years, despite the fact that Mark Cuban was willing to spend big to acquire needed players.
After a few years of Nellie tenure anywhere, the hard-core fans realize that Nellie is much more about being Nellie than he is about trying to win a championship. Nellie-ball is fun, in a sort of superficial way, but it's not nearly as satisfying to watch as a team solid on both ends of the court.
I see blah beat me to the punch on that.
12 minutes is not a good sample size. If you want to play Damp against GS you have to play a zone. Otherwise, whoever Damp is guarding just goes to the 3pt line. They either shoot open 3's all night or Damp gets pulled out of the middle. On a protracted basis, a defensive big man can only match up against post players (unless he's also effective on the perimeter like Shawn Marion)
'I don't buy the "he gets in foul trouble a lot" explanation. After all, the last two games (losses vs SAS and DAL) he only had two fouls per game and still only played 24 and 16 minutes. And this is doubly odd in that Golden State got absolutely hammered on the boards in both games. You'd think Nellie would play him when GS is losing the rebounding battle so decisively.'
Nellie believes big men (post players anyway) should foul. He's always wanted his centers to play few minutes, but very agressively for those few, especially on defense and the boards. If they were getting beaten on the boards and Biedrens wasn't in foul trouble, Nellie might have thought he wasn't being mean enough.
If they play like he wants, they pick up fouls. if they don't, he gets pissed and sits 'em.
"After a few years of Nellie tenure anywhere, the hard-core fans realize that Nellie is much more about being Nellie than he is about trying to win a championship. Nellie-ball is fun, in a sort of superficial way, but it's not nearly as satisfying to watch as a team solid on both ends of the court."
Maybe if you're the Mavericks, you can say, "Nellie-ball is fun, but we like what we have now better" (personally, I'd disagree. If I were a Mavs fan I'd be nostalgic for the Nellie years) but if you're a Warriors fan, Nellie's been an unalloyed blessing. The team was the laughinstock of the league for a decade, and Nellie steps in and in less than one season he turns it around.
This whole "championship or nothing" outlook strikes me a very joyless way to follow basketball. Of course, I'd like the Warriors to win it all, but if they don't, I'll still enjoy watching them. Every year there are 29 teams that don't win it all. I don't think that means 29 teams failed and one team suceeded. I want the team I root for to be competetive every time out, to win more than it loses, to make the playoffs, and to have a chance to make some noise in the playoffs. The Warriors are now that kind of team, and Nellie is the main reason.
If you want to play Damp against GS you have to play a zone. Otherwise, whoever Damp is guarding just goes to the 3pt line.
As I mentioned, Biendrins played 29 minutes and went for 16 and 14. At the very least Damp can play the same minutes Biendrins plays, especially when GS is beating them on the boards.
But this is also the wrong way to look at it - it is the same incorrect thinking that caused Avery to blow the series last year. If you are Dallas, you need to make GS adjust to you. Dump the ball into Damp on the offensive end and/or make sure you get lots of offensive boards.
If you want to play Damp against GS you have to play a zone. Otherwise, whoever Damp is guarding just goes to the 3pt line. They either shoot open 3's all night or Damp gets pulled out of the middle. On a protracted basis, a defensive big man can only match up against post players (unless he's also effective on the perimeter like Shawn Marion)
And that's how Nellie seduces most of the teams in the league into playing small-ball against him. It's why Nellie always wins a bunch of games but never really comes close to the title.
Dampier is statistically the best offensive rebounder in the NBA. Yeah, he'll get abused by Al Harrington or whoever on the defensive end, but he'll abuse them back on the offensive boards on the other end. I'd rather be the team getting dunks, layups, and second chances than the team relying on Al Harrington to make open 3s.
Simmons is absolutely correct that the J-Rich trade is badly hurting Oaktown this year, even if the long-term logic is compelling. They're just a bit thin this year.
It's too bad, though. It would've been interesting to see what would've happened if they'd kept the band together.
This whole "championship or nothing" outlook strikes me a very joyless way to follow basketball. Of course, I'd like the Warriors to win it all, but if they don't, I'll still enjoy watching them. Every year there are 29 teams that don't win it all. I don't think that means 29 teams failed and one team suceeded. I want the team I root for to be competetive every time out, to win more than it loses, to make the playoffs, and to have a chance to make some noise in the playoffs. The Warriors are now that kind of team, and Nellie is the main reason.
I couldn't agree more about the "championship or nothing" outlook -- it's poisonous.
But equally poisonous, in my opinion, is installing a gimmicky system that has scant hope of ever winning a championship.
Intrinsic to the fun of following one of those 29 teams that doesn't win the championship is the hope that they're striving for and possibly on track to winning one some day. Yes, Nellie-ball works in turning bad teams into winning teams, but only at the cost of keeping them from being true championship contenders. Running 3 guards and 2 forwards on to the court every night will seem a lot less charming to Warriors fans after they have a few 50 win seasons under their belts.
I could never put my finger on what was wrong with J-Rich, but I never thought he helped the team much. Now, they get rid of him basically for nothing, short-term-wise, and they're better than they were last year. I think the key is Monta. He's just a better player than J-Rich now, so if J-Rich's minutes and shots go to Monta, the team is better.
Petey's right about the depth concerns. If they get Petrius back, and Barnes gets his head right, they've got an OK bench with those guys and Azubuke (that's got to be spelled wrong). Croshere can contribute for a few minutes a night, and Brandon Wright might be able to. I'd like more depth, but that's not awful.
Sometimes its definitely hard to figure why AB isn't on the floor, probably having to do with his limited offensive skill set vs. their free-flowing schemes. Just rough because he's their ONLY decent rebounder, and often when the rest of the team fails to show up (like last night) he's the only one really hustling and working hard out there.
He's been almost strictly a pick/roll and garbage points player since entering, but in the last few months they've run a few more plays for him, without question he'll be a bigger factor as he broadens his game. Warriors trainer says he's the most diligent and focused worker he's ever seen in the NBA.
"No big deal, Freddie, no harm done."
I think in the end, it is simply that Nellie isn't a very good coach. He's good enough to get a big time first round upset once in a while, but you are never getting a consistent winner out of him
Agree with Al.
Are you telling me the Mavs weren't a consistent winner under Nellie?
he's been foul prone his whole career, and has been injury prone this season.
Are you telling me the Mavs weren't a consistent winner under Nellie?
Maybe "agree" is too strong. I was going to re-characterize Al's claim as, "Nellie's overrated." That I believe. He gets a lot out of weird lineups. But, for that reason, he likes weird personnel, which ends up limiting the potential heights his team can reach.
But this is also the wrong way to look at it - it is the same incorrect thinking that caused Avery to blow the series last year. If you are Dallas, you need to make GS adjust to you. Dump the ball into Damp on the offensive end and/or make sure you get lots of offensive boards.
It all depends on how much Dampier can do for you on the offensive end of the floor. I don't know how much difference those offensive rebounds make, but he is not normally regarded as an efficient scorer. Two years ago Dampier played very little against the Suns and then a lot against the Spurs. The Mavs won both series. Whether or not you adjust to your opponent is not directly related to your relative win-loss record. Shaq in his prime, for example, could probably beat GS with 4 scrubs playing beside him, but that's b/c he can really punish him offensively.
The fact that Dampier wasn't on the floor with Biedrins is a little weird b/c he's exactly the kind of player Dampier is supposed to guard. That's a different issue. But if GS is spreading the floor with 5 perimeter shooters, I'm pretty sure Dampier is not the answer unless he's going to be able to pour in buckets on the offensive end.
Are you telling me the Mavs weren't a consistent winner under Nellie?
I'm saying that the Mavs got to the Finals only once Nellie left - despite the fact that they let Nash go for nothing. He's a good coach - particularly in building an exciting, pretty good team - but not good enough to get to the Finals.
If that makes you happy, that fine. And I'm not a "championship or bust" person - I'm very happy that my Nets made the Finals twice and the playoffs seven years in a row (6 times to the second round), even though they never won it all). All I'm saying is that Nellie is limited in what he brings you.
I see that SCMT and I are on the same page re Nellie.
Has Nelson ever had really good results with a big man? We know about Webber, and Nowitzki has performed better post-Nelson. Every year he drafts a big man, and every year the big man warms the pine....
Nice for you to mention the Ws. Although what we're really pumped about is montgomery coming to Cal.
Biedrins is still only 21 years old and, in my opinion, has lots of unfulfilled potential. Does anyone remember the time, against the Phoenix Suns, that he took the ball from around the top of the key and in two dribbles dunked over Amare? I think he'd develop alot faster with a coach who wasn't so set in his ways.
The best coaches take what they have and develop the best system to match their skills and, in the case of the Warriors, potential.This way wins AND potential are maximized. For those who might point out Jackson and the triangle- not every coach is fortunate enough to have Jordan, Kobe and Shaq.
Lastly, I just have to say that after almost two full years with the team, Nelson HAS to assume most of the responsibility for the lack of fundamentals, defense and general boneheaded play. We're not going all the way so why not develop Wright, Biedrins, Buki, and even Bellinelli. Instead you play Pietrus with the low B-Ball IQ and almost guaranteed to choke in the clutch? Reeks of non-genius.
For those who would say that Nelson has taken this team farther than the talent might dictate, I guess you haven't been watching. We win most games by sheer virtue of various individual brilliance (Davis, Jackson and often-times Ellis and sometimes solid play by Biedrins and Buki) and a strong will- NOT sound coaching.
What I'd like to know is: what the hell happened to Matt Barnes? Why is he getting less than 15 minutes a game now?
His mom died during the season. Hasn't been the same player since.
It's more of a product of Nellie-ball than anything else. Golden State is somehow able to sucker the other team into pulling their big men by going small, game in and game out.
This popped up on my My ESPN page and I was surprised to find the Atlantic Monthly talking about Andris Biedrins -- thought it was going to be a discussion of his visa status or somethin'
Anyway, the comments here are atrocious. Nelson's a terrible coach? Biedrins is a terrible player? It's no fun rooting for the Warriors right now? Losing JRick is killing the Warriors? Are you f'n kidding me?!?
This team has been playing out of its mind for over a year without a single All-Star, Nelson has completely turned around the culture of the team, gotten the most out of Baron Davis, turned Captain Jack into a leader, Ellis has replaced JRich as a scorer, Biedrins is a monster who is only 21 ...
Pretty much everything written here is wrong.
-- If Nelson didn't like Biedrins, he wouldn't play him 26 minutes a night. That is solid run.
-- Barnes has struggled since HIS MOTHER DIED at the beginning of the year. Also, the Warriors know he is a good but replaceable player, that's why they didn't break the bank for him last year.
-- Mullin WILL break the bank for Biedrins, no matter what Nelson says. Nelson isn't going to coach forever and Mullin is a lot younger, he'll be the GM for years.
-- No sane Warriors fan is going to complain about not being on track for a championship after all the suffering we've endured.
-- 26 minutes is not that low for a young big man. According to ESPN, Biedrins plays the 18th most minutes of ALL NBA centers.
-- Even that number is misleading: Nelson is all about matchups. If he doesn't like the matchups, Biedrins might get only 12-15 minutes a night. Many nights he hits the high 30s or even 40 minutes a game. He has fouled out of 4 games and hit 5 fouls 14 times, further cutting court time.
Stop all the hating you East Coasters! Warriors would get the 4th seed in the Leastern right now...
This popped up on my My ESPN page and I was surprised to find the Atlantic Monthly talking about Andris Biedrins -- thought it was going to be a discussion of his visa status or somethin'
Anyway, the comments here are atrocious. Nelson's a terrible coach? Biedrins is a terrible player? It's no fun rooting for the Warriors right now? Losing JRick is killing the Warriors? Are you f'n kidding me?!?
This team has been playing out of its mind for over a year without a single All-Star, Nelson has completely turned around the culture of the team, gotten the most out of Baron Davis, turned Captain Jack into a leader, Ellis has replaced JRich as a scorer, Biedrins is a monster who is only 21 ...
Pretty much everything written here is wrong.
-- If Nelson didn't like Biedrins, he wouldn't play him 26 minutes a night. That is solid run.
-- Barnes has struggled since HIS MOTHER DIED at the beginning of the year. Also, the Warriors know he is a good but replaceable player, that's why they didn't break the bank for him last year.
-- Mullin WILL break the bank for Biedrins, no matter what Nelson says. Nelson isn't going to coach forever and Mullin is a lot younger, he'll be the GM for years.
-- No sane Warriors fan is going to complain about not being on track for a championship after all the suffering we've endured.
-- 26 minutes is not that low for a young big man. According to ESPN, Biedrins plays the 18th most minutes of ALL NBA centers.
-- Even that number is misleading: Nelson is all about matchups. If he doesn't like the matchups, Biedrins might get only 12-15 minutes a night. Many nights he hits the high 30s or even 40 minutes a game. He has fouled out of 4 games and hit 5 fouls 14 times, further cutting court time.
Stop all the hating you East Coasters! Warriors would get the 4th seed in the Leastern right now...
"But equally poisonous, in my opinion, is installing a gimmicky system that has scant hope of ever winning a championship."
You mean like the pistons with Lambeer playing neither high nor low post? Or playing a 6'9" point guard like Magic Johnson? Or no point guard like most of the Bulls Championship teams? You don't like gimmicky teams like those?
The only difference between "gimmicks" and innovation is the degree of success.
You mean like the pistons with Lambeer playing neither high nor low post? Or playing a 6'9" point guard like Magic Johnson? Or no point guard like most of the Bulls Championship teams? You don't like gimmicky teams like those?
The only difference between "gimmicks" and innovation is the degree of success.
Magic Johnson was a total no-brainer.
Scotty Pippen and Michael Jordan shared point-guard duties for those Bulls teams -- and they both were really good. Slotting a shooter such as BJ Armstrong or John Paxson at the "pg" position only made sense.
Yeah, those Pistons teams were weird all around, but they certainly didn't lack for size or interior defense.
I just don't see a history of small-ball winning championships at any level of basketball, ever. Arizona caught fire and won a NCAA title with Bibby, Terry, Simon that one year -- but I seriously doubt they could have done the same in a best-of-seven system.
It's just very hard to outsmart the brute geometry of basketball -- it's easier to score, defend, and rebound the closer you are to the basket.
"(Dampier) is not normally regarded as an efficient scorer."
Dampier has the fifth highest TS% in the entire association.
One can make several criticisms of Dampier's game, but he is certainly efficient in his scoring.
nellie is a crazy drunk who somehow fails to realize that height is a positive attribute for a basketball player.
Comments closed April 18, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Maybe it's because the people who run the team there in Oakland actually watch the games? This is the perfect example of the limits of these sabremetrics. Watch a Golden State game. Biedrins looks awful against many teams and frequently appears as if he's just learned what basketball is that very day. Seriously, I know people love to stick it to the "old guard" who are held back because they don't trust new-fangled statistical analysis. But actually watching a game and realizing "Man, that guy is awful" still has some value.
Posted by Freddie | April 4, 2008 3:40 PM