After the NBA Finals, my plan had been to take a look at the Sixers' roster using PER, WP48, ,and Adjusted +/- to determine where the Sixers stood and determine what their biggest needs were. Then I was going to propose ways for them to get better this off-season.
Obviously, I didn't get around to it right away. And in the meantime, the Sixers have made a few minor moves. (What? You wouldn't consider the Elton Brand signing a minor move...?)
That said, I thought it would still be a useful exercise, and now we'll also be able to evaluate the moves the Sixers have made this offseason in the context of the needs we identify.
For now, let's just look at the Sixers' roster as it stood at the end of last season (I've posted these numbers for the starters before-- in the posts comparing the Sixers to the Clippers):
(by the way-- if anyone knows how to import a spreadsheet into blogger, please let me know. Typing everything in neat columns isn't really my forte!)
PER Adj +/- WP48 Status
Andre Miller 18.51 -8.70 .167 signed
Willie Green 12.91 -0.75 -.019 signed
Andre Igoudala 19.05 4.95 .172 restricted free agent
Reggie Evans 11.05 2.75 .143 signed
Samuel Dalembert 15.62 0.73 .197 signed
Louis Williams 16.71 -7.68 .080 restricted free agent
Thaddeus Young 16.58 12.33 .099 signed
Jason Smith 10.76 -1.37 -.039 signed
Louis Amundson 7.59 n/a -.172 free agent
Herbert Hill n/a n/a n/a free agent
Shavlik Randolph 15.05 n/a .029 free agent
Kevin Ollie 9.81 n/a .017 free agent
Rodney Carney 12.15 1.54 -.032 signed
Calvin Booth n/a n/a -.033 signed
So looking at these numbers for the Sixers' roster at the start of the off-season, what do we see?
First, these stats don't agree on the value of our players. Some players rank high on PER, but low on adjusted +/-. Others low on PER, but high on WP48. So it isn't clear just from putting up these numbers how the roster should be evaluated. Unless, of course, you believe unreservedly in one metric, in which case things are much easier for you.
That said, I think it's a safe assumption that a player who rates well on all three metrics is a good player. On that basis, it seems clear that Andre Igoudala and Samuel Dalembert were the Sixers' cornerstones last season, ranking above average on all three metrics. That said, neither one really breaks into all-star territory on any of the three metrics.
As far as the other starters go, Andre Miller and Reggie Evans were either good (on two metrics each) or bad (on one metric each) depending on which metric you rely on. For now, I'll go with the majority of metrics and view the Sixers as being solid at both of these positions. Willie Green, on the other hand, is considered below average (or bad) by all three metrics.
Looking at the bench, we can see that Thaddeus Young had a very good rookie season. Beyond that, the results are mixed, at best. Louis Williams is either slightly above average (PER), slightly below average (WP48), or downright crappy. Rodney Carney was either below average (PER, WP48) or above average (adjusted +/-). Jason Smith was poor, despite the relatively positive reviews he received during the season. And the rest of the roster didn't really play enough to be evaluated, although Shavlik Randolph seems to be the most promising from the end of the bench crew.
In general, I think the numbers show that the Sixers' most glaring need was to improve the shooting guard position. Resigning Igoudala also was a clear off-season priority (although, as noted, not for all-star money). Simply accomplishing these two goals would have made the off-season a solid success, most likely ensuring a return to the playoffs. Beyond that, putting together a bench that inspires a bit more confidence was probably the next most urgent need. Resigning Louis Williams seems likely to help in that regard, but he's not nearly as certain to help as I think most people believe (including me before I did this analysis).
And I guess I should note that if you think adjusted +/- is clearly the best indicator, then strengthening the point guard position, and not the shooting guard position, is actually the Sixers' biggest need.
So that would have been the doctor's prescription for this off-season. In my next post, I'll take a look at how the Sixers' actual moves (so far) have matched (or not matched) these needs.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Europe.
It's a great place to visit (well, I've only been to Spain and England, but I've heard good things...), but is that where you want to go play basketball? Apparently for Josh Childress the answer is yes.
For those who don't know who he is, Childress is a small forward who was the 6th man on the Atlanta Hawks last season, and he probably should have been a starter. As a restricted free agent, Childress didn't have many options in the NBA-- the Hawks could match any offer from an NBA team, and apparently they were also reluctant to agree to a sign and trade.
So apparently Childress (and his agent) decided to think outside the box. He signed with Olympiacos (Greece) for about 3 years and $20 million, but with the added perk that his team would pay his taxes. That contract is apparently the most lucrative current contract in Europe, and probably ends up being more (once perks are included) than he could have earned here. And if Childress wants to return to the NBA (where the Hawks will retain his rights as a restricted free agent), he has an opt-out clause in his contract after every season. Not a bad deal.
This deal caught my attention for two reasons (aside from the general "Oh my god, an American chose to play in Europe over America" angle). First, I think Childress is a good player (WP48 of .206), and one I would have loved to have seen in a Sixers uniform. Granted that getting Childress was highly unlikely based on the Sixers' salary cap situation after the Brand signing, but he was starter quality (if not even better) while viewed as a back-up, so I had a vague hope that we could somehow steal him.
Second, the Sixers are currently negotiating with their own restricted free agent, Andre Igoudala. I've been assuming that there was basically no chance that Igoudala was going anywhere (and Mo Cheeks seemed to be under the same assumption, as evidenced by the article posted in the comments to one of my previous posts). The decision of Childress to head overseas gave me pause, but only for a moment. As I noted, Childress received the most lucrative current contract in Europe. Igoudala is almost certainly going to end up with a bigger contract than the one given to Childress (although according to WP48 he might not deserve a bigger one), so it seems unlikely that a European team is going to make Igoudala a better offer than the one the Sixers will (have?) put on the table.
On a more global view, I don't think that the decision of Childress (and a few international players) to leave the NBA for European leagues is really the start of a trend, but I guess it's always possible. If so, then it's possible we could end up in a situation where the top tier players remain in the NBA, the middle tier players go to Europe as the "big fish" over there, and the lower tier players make up the bulk of the NBA rosters. In that scenario, I think everyone in the NBA suffers because the quality of play becomes much more uneven. European basketball gets stronger, but still remains a step below the NBA. All in all, I don't think that's a great result for basketball fans (but maybe that's just because I watch the NBA and not European basketball).
What do you think?
For those who don't know who he is, Childress is a small forward who was the 6th man on the Atlanta Hawks last season, and he probably should have been a starter. As a restricted free agent, Childress didn't have many options in the NBA-- the Hawks could match any offer from an NBA team, and apparently they were also reluctant to agree to a sign and trade.
So apparently Childress (and his agent) decided to think outside the box. He signed with Olympiacos (Greece) for about 3 years and $20 million, but with the added perk that his team would pay his taxes. That contract is apparently the most lucrative current contract in Europe, and probably ends up being more (once perks are included) than he could have earned here. And if Childress wants to return to the NBA (where the Hawks will retain his rights as a restricted free agent), he has an opt-out clause in his contract after every season. Not a bad deal.
This deal caught my attention for two reasons (aside from the general "Oh my god, an American chose to play in Europe over America" angle). First, I think Childress is a good player (WP48 of .206), and one I would have loved to have seen in a Sixers uniform. Granted that getting Childress was highly unlikely based on the Sixers' salary cap situation after the Brand signing, but he was starter quality (if not even better) while viewed as a back-up, so I had a vague hope that we could somehow steal him.
Second, the Sixers are currently negotiating with their own restricted free agent, Andre Igoudala. I've been assuming that there was basically no chance that Igoudala was going anywhere (and Mo Cheeks seemed to be under the same assumption, as evidenced by the article posted in the comments to one of my previous posts). The decision of Childress to head overseas gave me pause, but only for a moment. As I noted, Childress received the most lucrative current contract in Europe. Igoudala is almost certainly going to end up with a bigger contract than the one given to Childress (although according to WP48 he might not deserve a bigger one), so it seems unlikely that a European team is going to make Igoudala a better offer than the one the Sixers will (have?) put on the table.
On a more global view, I don't think that the decision of Childress (and a few international players) to leave the NBA for European leagues is really the start of a trend, but I guess it's always possible. If so, then it's possible we could end up in a situation where the top tier players remain in the NBA, the middle tier players go to Europe as the "big fish" over there, and the lower tier players make up the bulk of the NBA rosters. In that scenario, I think everyone in the NBA suffers because the quality of play becomes much more uneven. European basketball gets stronger, but still remains a step below the NBA. All in all, I don't think that's a great result for basketball fans (but maybe that's just because I watch the NBA and not European basketball).
What do you think?
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Great for the Sixers. Great for Brand? -- Part III
The Sixers are clearly a better team with Elton Brand than they were without him. In my last two posts, I've investigated the related question of whether Elton Brand made the right decision (in terms of being on the better team) by choosing the Sixers over the Clippers.
What I've found so far is that both PER and Adjusted +/- indicate that Brand made the correct choice in signing with the Sixers. To finish my trilogy of posts on the subject, today I'm going to see what Wins Produced (WP48, to be precise) has to say about this analysis.
And related to Wins Produced, Professor Berri put up an article the other day on how Brand's presence will help the Sixers. In addition to being as interesting as all his posts, his post made it very easy for me to find all the Sixers' WP48 information in one location. Thanks, Professor!
(He also put one up that details how the Clippers acquisition of Camby helps make up for the loss of Brand, but how the Clippers still aren't a particularly good team.)
Professor Berri also put up a post in May that looked at the Clippers' season, and that article was my source for the Clippers' WP48 information. I got my Baron Davis numbers from here.
We begin, as always, with the point guards. As with PER (but quite different from adjusted +/-), WP48 ranked Baron Davis (.177) and Andre Miller (.167) as very comparable point guards, but with Davis having the slight edge. At shooting guard position, Cutino Mobley (.029) held a slight advantage over Willie Green (-0.019). Andre Igoudala (.172) was, once again, ranked substantially ahead of Al Thornton (-0.081) (Corey Maggette, no longer with the Clippers, had a WP48 of .132). Finally, Chris Kaman (.233) was ranked ahead of Samuel Dalembert (.197), with each player having the highest WP48 on their respective teams.
As a result, based on WP48 the Clippers have an advantage at three positions while the Sixers have an advantage at just one position. However, the Sixers hold an overall edge in WP48 of .517 to .358. Thus, while a position by position comparison favors the Clippers based on WP48, the overall strength of the "other" starting four (excluding Brand) favors the Sixers.
If you move Thaddeus Young (.099) into the starting line-up as the SF and shift Andre Igoudala to the SG as seems likely to happen this year, then all of a sudden the Sixers and Clippers are back to having an advantage at two positions each. And the Sixers overall WP48 increases to .635 (increasing their advantage from .159 to .277. Again, even if Thornton improves, there's no reason to believe that he'll improve more than Young does. And I also don't think there's any reason to believe that Eric Gordon will have a better rookie season than Thornton did (or than Willie Green did last season). So if you move Young into the Sixers' starting line-up, I'd call the comparison a clear win for the Sixers.
So what have we learned?
Based on the advanced statistical metrics, it looks like the Sixers' "other" starters (excluding Brand) are better than the Clippers' "other" starters. With PER, the Clippers and Sixers each hold an advantage at two positions. With adjusted +/-, the Sixers hold an advantage at three positions. With WP48, the Clippers hold an advantage at three positions (although the positional advantage disappears when Young is inserted into the Sixers' starting line-up as seems likely to happen this season). In all three cases, the overall strength of the Sixers "other" starters is stronger than the overall strength of the Clippers "other" starters.
The verdict: Elton Brand made the right call. Welcome to Philadelphia, Mr. Brand.
(One final note: I did the comparisons using all three metrics comparing Igoudala to Thornton as the small forwards and Green to Mobley as the shooting guards because that seemed like the most accurate way to do it. Considering how interchangeable the wing positions are at times, I could have compared Igoudala to Mobley and Green to Thornton. For PER and
adjusted +/-, this change would have made no difference. For WP48, this change would have benefited the Sixers. Igoudala was better than Mobley and Thornton on all three metrics. Green was better than Mobley on two out of the three metrics, and Green was also better than Thornton on all three metrics. Considering the relatively low regard in which I view Green as a player, I found it a little shocking that he "outscored" Thornton on all three metrics, especially when you consider how well-regarded Thornton appears to be among Clippers fans. Statistical measures aren't the be-all and end-all (and Thornton was just a rookie), but if I were a Clippers fan I think these results would make me seriously question my belief in Al Thornton as a savior of the franchise.)
What I've found so far is that both PER and Adjusted +/- indicate that Brand made the correct choice in signing with the Sixers. To finish my trilogy of posts on the subject, today I'm going to see what Wins Produced (WP48, to be precise) has to say about this analysis.
And related to Wins Produced, Professor Berri put up an article the other day on how Brand's presence will help the Sixers. In addition to being as interesting as all his posts, his post made it very easy for me to find all the Sixers' WP48 information in one location. Thanks, Professor!
(He also put one up that details how the Clippers acquisition of Camby helps make up for the loss of Brand, but how the Clippers still aren't a particularly good team.)
Professor Berri also put up a post in May that looked at the Clippers' season, and that article was my source for the Clippers' WP48 information. I got my Baron Davis numbers from here.
We begin, as always, with the point guards. As with PER (but quite different from adjusted +/-), WP48 ranked Baron Davis (.177) and Andre Miller (.167) as very comparable point guards, but with Davis having the slight edge. At shooting guard position, Cutino Mobley (.029) held a slight advantage over Willie Green (-0.019). Andre Igoudala (.172) was, once again, ranked substantially ahead of Al Thornton (-0.081) (Corey Maggette, no longer with the Clippers, had a WP48 of .132). Finally, Chris Kaman (.233) was ranked ahead of Samuel Dalembert (.197), with each player having the highest WP48 on their respective teams.
As a result, based on WP48 the Clippers have an advantage at three positions while the Sixers have an advantage at just one position. However, the Sixers hold an overall edge in WP48 of .517 to .358. Thus, while a position by position comparison favors the Clippers based on WP48, the overall strength of the "other" starting four (excluding Brand) favors the Sixers.
If you move Thaddeus Young (.099) into the starting line-up as the SF and shift Andre Igoudala to the SG as seems likely to happen this year, then all of a sudden the Sixers and Clippers are back to having an advantage at two positions each. And the Sixers overall WP48 increases to .635 (increasing their advantage from .159 to .277. Again, even if Thornton improves, there's no reason to believe that he'll improve more than Young does. And I also don't think there's any reason to believe that Eric Gordon will have a better rookie season than Thornton did (or than Willie Green did last season). So if you move Young into the Sixers' starting line-up, I'd call the comparison a clear win for the Sixers.
So what have we learned?
Based on the advanced statistical metrics, it looks like the Sixers' "other" starters (excluding Brand) are better than the Clippers' "other" starters. With PER, the Clippers and Sixers each hold an advantage at two positions. With adjusted +/-, the Sixers hold an advantage at three positions. With WP48, the Clippers hold an advantage at three positions (although the positional advantage disappears when Young is inserted into the Sixers' starting line-up as seems likely to happen this season). In all three cases, the overall strength of the Sixers "other" starters is stronger than the overall strength of the Clippers "other" starters.
The verdict: Elton Brand made the right call. Welcome to Philadelphia, Mr. Brand.
(One final note: I did the comparisons using all three metrics comparing Igoudala to Thornton as the small forwards and Green to Mobley as the shooting guards because that seemed like the most accurate way to do it. Considering how interchangeable the wing positions are at times, I could have compared Igoudala to Mobley and Green to Thornton. For PER and
adjusted +/-, this change would have made no difference. For WP48, this change would have benefited the Sixers. Igoudala was better than Mobley and Thornton on all three metrics. Green was better than Mobley on two out of the three metrics, and Green was also better than Thornton on all three metrics. Considering the relatively low regard in which I view Green as a player, I found it a little shocking that he "outscored" Thornton on all three metrics, especially when you consider how well-regarded Thornton appears to be among Clippers fans. Statistical measures aren't the be-all and end-all (and Thornton was just a rookie), but if I were a Clippers fan I think these results would make me seriously question my belief in Al Thornton as a savior of the franchise.)
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Great for the Sixers. Great for Brand? -- Part II
In my previous post, I compared the Sixers' and Clippers' "other" starting four (apart from Elton Brand) based on PER to try and see whether Brand made a mistake in deciding to come to the Sixers if he was just concerned about being a part of the better basketball team. Based strictly on the PER numbers, the decision to sign with the Sixers appeared to be the correct one.
Today I'll be checking to see if Adjusted +/- gives a different take on the situation.
You can find adjusted +/- stats at basketballvalue.com. Sixers stats are here; Clippers stats are here. Baron Davis's stats from the Warriors come from here.
Looking at the point guards, Baron Davis (6.29) has by far the highest +/- of any of the eight "starting" players, while Andre Miller (-8.70) has by far the lowest. Compare that result to PER, which ranks Davis ahead of Miller, but only slightly. Also in contrast to PER, but this time in a good way for the Sixers, adjusted +/- ranks Samuel Dalembert (0.73) ahead of Chris Kaman (-2.23)
As expected with the shooting guards, Cutino Mobley (-3.63) and Willie Green (-0.75) both fall in the negative range, although surprisingly (at least to me) Green isn't in the realm of the terrible. On the other wing, Andre Igoudala (4.95) unsurprisingly trounces Al Thornton (-5.57). Corey Maggette (3.88) had a very respectable adjusted +/- (just as with PER), but he's no longer with the Clippers.
So based on adjusted +/-, the Sixers hold an advantage at three of the four positions. In addition, the Sixers' adjusted +/- total is -3.77 -- bad, but still better than the Clippers' overall total of -5.14.
As discussed with PER, this total ignores the likelihood that the Sixers slide Igoudala to the SG position and insert Thaddeus Young into the starting line-up at SF. Based on adjusted +/-, this change makes a huge difference in favor of the Sixers since Young had an extravagantly high adjusted +/- of 12.33 (not a typo; he had the third best adjusted +/- in the league last season). Putting Young in the starting line-up would leave the Sixers with their advantage at three positions, but it would increase the Sixers' overall total to 9.31-- increasing their advantage over the Clippers from 1.37 to 14.45.
I can't imagine Young will have such a high adjusted +/- next season. But even assuming he regresses towards an average performance and Thornton improves (as Clipper fans expect), it still seems like the Sixers come out ahead in this analysis. And I don't think anyone should expect Eric Gordon to put up better numbers this year than Cutino Mobley did last year, so I really don't see the addition of Gordon making much of a difference to this analysis either. I guess it's possible that if you just say Thornton improves and Green remains in the starting line-up than the Clippers can overcome the 1.37 adjusted +/- difference that exists between the starting line-ups based on what happened last season. But then again, we could make any assumption we want about how people will perform next year (after all, anything can happen) if we want to reach a certain result. So I think that we should just stick with the numbers from last season for now.
I will say that I was shocked to see that Miller did so poorly in adjusted +/-. He's generally considered a very good, if not quite top tier, point guard. Watching him play, he always seems to be doing positive things. In terms of the other advanced stats, he ranks well in PER, and I know that he also does well under Wins Produced (which I'll look at tomorrow). Hmm. Definitely something to think about.
(One side note-- Reggie Evans had an adjusted +/- of 2.75 last season, third best on the team. He'll most likely get reduced minutes to some extent with the arrival of Brand, but if he gets the vast majority of the back-up big man minutes (in a three man rotation of Brand, Dalembert, and Evans) then the Sixers will be very solid up front according to adjusted +/-.)
So what have we learned so far about whether Brand made a good basketball decision to sign with the Sixers over the Clippers?
According to PER, the Sixers and Clippers each have an advantage at two positions, but the Sixers are stronger overall.
Adjusted +/- leans even more in the Sixers favor, giving the Sixers an advantage at three positions, as well as an overall advantage.
Check back tomorrow to see what Wins Produced has to say on the matter.
Today I'll be checking to see if Adjusted +/- gives a different take on the situation.
You can find adjusted +/- stats at basketballvalue.com. Sixers stats are here; Clippers stats are here. Baron Davis's stats from the Warriors come from here.
Looking at the point guards, Baron Davis (6.29) has by far the highest +/- of any of the eight "starting" players, while Andre Miller (-8.70) has by far the lowest. Compare that result to PER, which ranks Davis ahead of Miller, but only slightly. Also in contrast to PER, but this time in a good way for the Sixers, adjusted +/- ranks Samuel Dalembert (0.73) ahead of Chris Kaman (-2.23)
As expected with the shooting guards, Cutino Mobley (-3.63) and Willie Green (-0.75) both fall in the negative range, although surprisingly (at least to me) Green isn't in the realm of the terrible. On the other wing, Andre Igoudala (4.95) unsurprisingly trounces Al Thornton (-5.57). Corey Maggette (3.88) had a very respectable adjusted +/- (just as with PER), but he's no longer with the Clippers.
So based on adjusted +/-, the Sixers hold an advantage at three of the four positions. In addition, the Sixers' adjusted +/- total is -3.77 -- bad, but still better than the Clippers' overall total of -5.14.
As discussed with PER, this total ignores the likelihood that the Sixers slide Igoudala to the SG position and insert Thaddeus Young into the starting line-up at SF. Based on adjusted +/-, this change makes a huge difference in favor of the Sixers since Young had an extravagantly high adjusted +/- of 12.33 (not a typo; he had the third best adjusted +/- in the league last season). Putting Young in the starting line-up would leave the Sixers with their advantage at three positions, but it would increase the Sixers' overall total to 9.31-- increasing their advantage over the Clippers from 1.37 to 14.45.
I can't imagine Young will have such a high adjusted +/- next season. But even assuming he regresses towards an average performance and Thornton improves (as Clipper fans expect), it still seems like the Sixers come out ahead in this analysis. And I don't think anyone should expect Eric Gordon to put up better numbers this year than Cutino Mobley did last year, so I really don't see the addition of Gordon making much of a difference to this analysis either. I guess it's possible that if you just say Thornton improves and Green remains in the starting line-up than the Clippers can overcome the 1.37 adjusted +/- difference that exists between the starting line-ups based on what happened last season. But then again, we could make any assumption we want about how people will perform next year (after all, anything can happen) if we want to reach a certain result. So I think that we should just stick with the numbers from last season for now.
I will say that I was shocked to see that Miller did so poorly in adjusted +/-. He's generally considered a very good, if not quite top tier, point guard. Watching him play, he always seems to be doing positive things. In terms of the other advanced stats, he ranks well in PER, and I know that he also does well under Wins Produced (which I'll look at tomorrow). Hmm. Definitely something to think about.
(One side note-- Reggie Evans had an adjusted +/- of 2.75 last season, third best on the team. He'll most likely get reduced minutes to some extent with the arrival of Brand, but if he gets the vast majority of the back-up big man minutes (in a three man rotation of Brand, Dalembert, and Evans) then the Sixers will be very solid up front according to adjusted +/-.)
So what have we learned so far about whether Brand made a good basketball decision to sign with the Sixers over the Clippers?
According to PER, the Sixers and Clippers each have an advantage at two positions, but the Sixers are stronger overall.
Adjusted +/- leans even more in the Sixers favor, giving the Sixers an advantage at three positions, as well as an overall advantage.
Check back tomorrow to see what Wins Produced has to say on the matter.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Great for the Sixers. Great for Brand? -- Part I
There's no question that the Sixers are a much better team with Elton Brand than without him. Somewhat lost in the hubbub around Brand's decision to come to the Sixers is whether the move is good for Brand in a basketball sense-- that is, are Brand's chances of winning with the Sixers better than they would have been if he had stayed with the revamped Clippers.
The one place that this question has been most frequently raised (the only place, really, that I've come across it) is on the Clipper fan blogs, notably Clips Nation. From the perspective of many Clippers fans, Brand went to a situation with the Sixers that is decidedly worse than the one he would have had in L.A.
In particular, I noticed that Clipper fans were saying that the "other" starting four on the Clippers was clearly better than the "other" starting four on the Sixers. I wasn't quite clear on how they were coming to this conclusion, so I asked for clarification in the comments to this thread. I noted that going solely by Player Efficiency Rating, the Sixers and Clippers each seemed to have better players at two of the four positions, but overall the Sixers scored higher. I got some interesting and thoughtful responses from some of their posters. I didn't necessarily agree with their conclusions, but they definitely were well thought out and had plenty of merit.
So, first, I suggest you go click on the links above and read the exchange there (particularly the responses from Citizen Zhiv and Clipper Steve). Second, I thought I'd reproduce my side of the argument related to PER here, and expand it to also include the results based on looking at Adjusted +/- (Part II) and Wins Produced.
So, setting aside Elton Brand, do the Sixers or Clippers have the better starting line-up? To start with, I'll assume that the Sixers start the same players at the other four positions as last season-- Andre Miller, Willie Green, Andre Igoudala, and Samuel Dalembert. I'll also assume that the Clippers start the same players as last year, only with the recently signed Baron Davis at point guard.
(Note- these next three paragraphs are copied from my comments at Clips Nation. I've put changes in brackets.)
I think the response of the Clippers fans (and clink on this link to read their full comments if you haven't already) can be summed up as (1) PER is not the be-all, end-all metric for player evaluation (agreed!), (2) the difference between Kaman/Davis and Dalembert/Miller is actually much greater than PER indicates, (3) Thornton is much better than PER indicates, and (4) the Clippers have more (and better) shot creators, and that makes a big difference in close games and playoff games.
The first three responses are all basically subsets of the same argument that PER has flaws. I don't disagree with this point, but I'm not entirely convinced that their views on the relative abilities of the players involved is the correct one (notably, I'm not nearly as impressed with Thornton as they are). As for the fourth response, I'd say-- yes, the Clippers have better creators overall, but I think this advantage is maybe a tad overblown in the importance given to it relative to all the other aspects of a basketball game.
Am I right or are they? Who knows. You can let me know what you think in the comments.
And what does Adjusted +/- say about this debate? Check out my next post to find out.
(And since we're talking Clippers, I just saw in this post at Clips Nation that Marcus Camby has been traded to the Clippers from the Nuggets. And he was traded for basically nothing-- a trade exception and the ability to swap 2nd round picks. Wow, what a steal.)
The one place that this question has been most frequently raised (the only place, really, that I've come across it) is on the Clipper fan blogs, notably Clips Nation. From the perspective of many Clippers fans, Brand went to a situation with the Sixers that is decidedly worse than the one he would have had in L.A.
In particular, I noticed that Clipper fans were saying that the "other" starting four on the Clippers was clearly better than the "other" starting four on the Sixers. I wasn't quite clear on how they were coming to this conclusion, so I asked for clarification in the comments to this thread. I noted that going solely by Player Efficiency Rating, the Sixers and Clippers each seemed to have better players at two of the four positions, but overall the Sixers scored higher. I got some interesting and thoughtful responses from some of their posters. I didn't necessarily agree with their conclusions, but they definitely were well thought out and had plenty of merit.
So, first, I suggest you go click on the links above and read the exchange there (particularly the responses from Citizen Zhiv and Clipper Steve). Second, I thought I'd reproduce my side of the argument related to PER here, and expand it to also include the results based on looking at Adjusted +/- (Part II) and Wins Produced.
So, setting aside Elton Brand, do the Sixers or Clippers have the better starting line-up? To start with, I'll assume that the Sixers start the same players at the other four positions as last season-- Andre Miller, Willie Green, Andre Igoudala, and Samuel Dalembert. I'll also assume that the Clippers start the same players as last year, only with the recently signed Baron Davis at point guard.
(Note- these next three paragraphs are copied from my comments at Clips Nation. I've put changes in brackets.)
Based on PER [(found here; average PER for the league is 15.00)], Baron Davis (19.87) is slightly ahead of Andre Miller (18.51), Willie Green (12.91) and Cutino Mobley (11.56) are both pretty bad, but Green ranks slightly higher, Andre Igoudala (19.05) is far ahead of any Clipper SF (Maggette was at 19.43, but he’s not a Clipper anymore; Al Thornton was at 12.71), and Chris Kaman (17.62) gets the nod over Samuel Dalembert (15.62).So, all in all, PER indicates that the Sixers have the stronger starting line-up, although it's a close call in many ways.That gives PER totals of Clippers 61.76 and Sixers 66.09. So according to PER, the Sixers and Clippers each have an advantage at two positions, but the Sixers have the overall advantage. If you assume the Sixers will start Thaddeus Young (16.58) at SF this year and play Igoudala at SG, then the Sixers and Clippers still each have an advantage at two positions, but the Sixers’ overall advantage increases by 3.67 PER.
If [Clippers fans are] assuming that Thornton is going to improve, I don’t see any reason to assume that he’ll improve more than Young. If [Clipper fans are] assuming that Eric Gordon will make the difference (i.e. he’ll play SG and be better than Willie Green), then that doesn’t take into account the plan for the Sixers to switch Igoudala to that position (or my belief that Gordon is unlikely to do any better than Thornton’s rookie PER which was less than Green’s PER last season).
I think the response of the Clippers fans (and clink on this link to read their full comments if you haven't already) can be summed up as (1) PER is not the be-all, end-all metric for player evaluation (agreed!), (2) the difference between Kaman/Davis and Dalembert/Miller is actually much greater than PER indicates, (3) Thornton is much better than PER indicates, and (4) the Clippers have more (and better) shot creators, and that makes a big difference in close games and playoff games.
The first three responses are all basically subsets of the same argument that PER has flaws. I don't disagree with this point, but I'm not entirely convinced that their views on the relative abilities of the players involved is the correct one (notably, I'm not nearly as impressed with Thornton as they are). As for the fourth response, I'd say-- yes, the Clippers have better creators overall, but I think this advantage is maybe a tad overblown in the importance given to it relative to all the other aspects of a basketball game.
Am I right or are they? Who knows. You can let me know what you think in the comments.
And what does Adjusted +/- say about this debate? Check out my next post to find out.
(And since we're talking Clippers, I just saw in this post at Clips Nation that Marcus Camby has been traded to the Clippers from the Nuggets. And he was traded for basically nothing-- a trade exception and the ability to swap 2nd round picks. Wow, what a steal.)
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
We got him! We got him!
Wow. We got Elton Brand. Woo-hoo!
For the details, go here.
And for a positive assessment of what this means for the Sixers, go here:
For the details, go here.
And for a positive assessment of what this means for the Sixers, go here:
Are the Philadelphia 76ers, as presently constituted, good enough to win the East in the 2008-09 season? Doubtful.
But are the Sixers good enough to win a playoff series or two and scare the bejeezus out of Detroit and Boston? You bet. And if they add a shooter and get another year of growth from all their young studs, will they be in position to win the conference in 2010? Absolutely.
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
The Elton Brand mirage (?)I
If the Sixers were able to sign Elton Brand, I can't even begin to describe how happy I'd be. He's a great player, plus he fits the Sixers need for a strong low-post presence.
I was in the middle of writing that despite how excited I'd be and the flurry of articles today about the possibility, I seriously doubted that the Sixers were in real contention for his services. Then I went to ESPN.com to try and find links to the articles that I'd read on the topic earlier today, and I came across this article:
(I'm speechless)
(As a side note, all the articles from earlier in the day have been replaced by updated versions that include this more recent information, so no links to them. Sorry.)
As the articles from earlier today hinted (and this most recent article stated), the Sixers are creating more room under the salary cap to make this signing possible by trading Rodney Carney, Calvin Booth, and a first round pick to the Timberwolves for a second round pick and/or a part of a trade exception (depending on which article you read-- the trade has only been agreed to in principle at this point). It seems odd to trade away players for basically nothing, but I wasn't too bothered by the trade because I haven't been very impressed by Carney and hopefully the Sixers first round pick won't be a good one in coming years. If this trade actually makes it possible for the Sixers to sign Brand, I'll be one happy camper.
If I'm a Clippers fan, then I'm definitely one unhappy camper. And I'd probably feel a little used. After all, when Brand opted out of the last year of his contract, he talked about how he planned on resigning with the Clippers and was opting out in part to give the Clippers more payroll flexibility so they could get him some better support. So what happens? The Clippers go out and reach an agreement in principle with Baron Davis, using some of the money that could have been used for Brand, and Brand (apparently) agrees to sign with another team for less than the Clippers could have originally offered him (but more than the current offer). And less than the Warriors are offering. Huh.
(If you're keeping track, the reported offers are: Sixers, 5 years, $82 milliion; Clippers, 5 years, $75 million; Warriors, 5 years, $90 million.)
I guess we'll find out what's really going on tomorrow. And in the mean time, for a well-balanced, let's-not-get-all-hysterical-quite-yet take on the situation from the perspective of a Clippers fan, you can go here. For a Sixers fan, this paragraph is probably the key insight:
I was in the middle of writing that despite how excited I'd be and the flurry of articles today about the possibility, I seriously doubted that the Sixers were in real contention for his services. Then I went to ESPN.com to try and find links to the articles that I'd read on the topic earlier today, and I came across this article:
NBA front-office sources told ESPN.com on Tuesday that Brand has informed the Sixers that he will accept a five-year deal worth an estimated $82 million and spurn what was presumed to be a slam-dunk return to the Los Angeles Clippers to hook up with Clipper-to-be Baron Davis.I mean...wow. Just, wow.
(I'm speechless)
(As a side note, all the articles from earlier in the day have been replaced by updated versions that include this more recent information, so no links to them. Sorry.)
As the articles from earlier today hinted (and this most recent article stated), the Sixers are creating more room under the salary cap to make this signing possible by trading Rodney Carney, Calvin Booth, and a first round pick to the Timberwolves for a second round pick and/or a part of a trade exception (depending on which article you read-- the trade has only been agreed to in principle at this point). It seems odd to trade away players for basically nothing, but I wasn't too bothered by the trade because I haven't been very impressed by Carney and hopefully the Sixers first round pick won't be a good one in coming years. If this trade actually makes it possible for the Sixers to sign Brand, I'll be one happy camper.
If I'm a Clippers fan, then I'm definitely one unhappy camper. And I'd probably feel a little used. After all, when Brand opted out of the last year of his contract, he talked about how he planned on resigning with the Clippers and was opting out in part to give the Clippers more payroll flexibility so they could get him some better support. So what happens? The Clippers go out and reach an agreement in principle with Baron Davis, using some of the money that could have been used for Brand, and Brand (apparently) agrees to sign with another team for less than the Clippers could have originally offered him (but more than the current offer). And less than the Warriors are offering. Huh.
(If you're keeping track, the reported offers are: Sixers, 5 years, $82 milliion; Clippers, 5 years, $75 million; Warriors, 5 years, $90 million.)
I guess we'll find out what's really going on tomorrow. And in the mean time, for a well-balanced, let's-not-get-all-hysterical-quite-yet take on the situation from the perspective of a Clippers fan, you can go here. For a Sixers fan, this paragraph is probably the key insight:
Look, we don't have any more information from Elton today than we did last Monday night. It's a little nerve-wracking, I'll grant you that. But we suspected most of this would happen from the start, didn't we? We suspected Philly would try to get in the game. We suspected (after the first day or so), that Elton would take his time and listen to everyone, if only to do his due diligence. Did Philly shed contracts in order to squeeze out a bigger offer to EB because of 'smoke signals coming from Brand's teepee' as John Hollinger so politically incorrectly put it? Maybe, maybe not. Remember, they've got their sights set on Josh Smith too, and a bigger offer there is just as relevant as a bigger offer to Brand. They'll offer the money to Brand first for two reasons - one, he's better. But more importantly, he's unrestricted and can answer with a simple 'yes' or 'no'. With Smith, if they make the offer and he accepts it, Atlanta has 7 days to match, which could tie up Philly's money for 7 days. So an offer to Smith precludes an offer to Brand. So you go after Brand first, whether or not it's a long shot.
The idea that the Sixers have a more exciting team for Brand to join just doesn't ring true. Andre Miller? EB's been there and done that, and even if he thought Andre was a great piece of the puzzle there, this is pretty clearly his last season in Philly. So I hardly see Miller as a big draw. Does Elton want to get into the Eastern Conference where he can make the all star team and the playoffs without breaking a sweat? Maybe. But I fail to see the Sixers as having a more promising future than the Clippers with Baron Davis.
(I disagree that the Clippers have a brighter future than the Sixers, but everyone thinks a little more highly of their own team's future)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)