Well, I know that first part happened. The verdict on the second part of that title is still up for debate. But the results since he was hurt have been somewhat positive. Checking the schedule...the Sixers are 6-6 since Brand got hurt (including the game against the Bucks in which he got hurt) and just 10-14 before the injury.
Hmm.... Not a huge difference, but certainly everyone's view of how they're doing seems to have changed. I guess expectations will do that to you-- going sub-.500 with Brand was considered a let-down, but going .500 without him is considered playing well.
In all fairness to Brand, this "hot streak" is probably less impressive than it seems. After all, the Sixers have simply beaten the sub-.500 teams and lost to the above-.500 teams during this stretch. They did beat the Rockets, but they also lost to the Pacers to balance it out.
Still, it does appear that the Sixers are playing a little bit better. Much of the talk of the Sixers' "improvement" over the last couple of weeks has centered on their return to a running style of play that wasn't possible with Brand.
Maybe that's the answer, but the answer might actually be a bit simpler-- Brand simply wasn't playing that well, so having someone else take his playing time has made the Sixers better. It was a change in players, not a change in style that has been making the difference.
After Mo Cheeks was fired, Professor Berri took a look at the Sixers over at the Wages of Wins. Back in 2006-07 (pre-injury), Brand had a WP48 of .213. But before his injury this season, Brand only had a WP48 of .075. Remember-- .100 is an average player (and average starters are even higher), so Brand was playing worse than an average NBA player. And he was playing 35 minutes per game.
Samuel Dalembert (.138), Marreese Speights (.127), and Reggie Evans (.121) all had higher WP48 than Brand, but none of them were playing nearly the minutes he had played. So when you take Brand out of the rotation, all of a sudden the Sixers improve.
Now, Brand isn't alone in playing below expectations. From our core contributors, WP48 shows Dalembert, Thaddeus Young, Evans, and Louis Williams all playing worse than last year. (Igoudala has actually been playing better this year according to WP48, despite his scoring woes.) Still, Brand was playing worse than the other bigs. Not exactly what we were hoping for out of our big off-season acquisition.
Here's hoping that Brand's performance is just the result of him still not being 100% healthy after his major injury from before, and that he'll get better once he returns from his curent injury.
Showing posts with label Samuel Dalembert. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Samuel Dalembert. Show all posts
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Saturday, December 13, 2008
So Long, Mo. Thanks for the memories.
Guess I missed the news. I'm sitting here watching the Sixers-Wizards game (I live in D.C. right now, so the game is on TV. Glad that I'm finally getting to watch a game.), and about half-way through the second quarter I hear the announcers mentioning the Sixers new interim head coach. Somehow I hadn't seen the news before now (I know the change was only made earlier today, but still...).
I know the generic reasons given for firing Mo Cheeks-- need to shake up the team, underperforming, etc.-- but I can't say I'm a big fan of the move. And that's coming from someone who's never thought Cheeks was anything more than an average coach. As my last post talked about, Cheeks was basically playing everyone the minutes that was expected. If the problem is that Andre Igoudala, Elton Brand, and Samuel Dalembert are playing worse than expected, then I don't see how getting rid of Cheeks helps anything. I especially don't see how it helps in the case of Igoudala and Dalembert-- after all, he was also the coach when they played really well last year.
So what do I expect? I expect the Sixers to start playing better and finish the season with somewhere between 40 and 50 wins. They have a few easy games over the next week that they should win (including tonight's game and next Friday's game against the Wizards that I'm going to!), so I expect the "improved" play to start right away. Of course, that's what I was expecting before the firing. Stefanski will get credit for shaking things up, and really it'll just be the players returning to their normal performance level.
As long as the Sixers start playing better I guess I won't be too bothered by the coaching change. After all, I don't follow the Sixers to watch the coach!
Update: I meant to post these two links from ESPN on the firing (by John Hollinger and Marc Stein) for a more detailed take on the firing. Take a look!
I know the generic reasons given for firing Mo Cheeks-- need to shake up the team, underperforming, etc.-- but I can't say I'm a big fan of the move. And that's coming from someone who's never thought Cheeks was anything more than an average coach. As my last post talked about, Cheeks was basically playing everyone the minutes that was expected. If the problem is that Andre Igoudala, Elton Brand, and Samuel Dalembert are playing worse than expected, then I don't see how getting rid of Cheeks helps anything. I especially don't see how it helps in the case of Igoudala and Dalembert-- after all, he was also the coach when they played really well last year.
So what do I expect? I expect the Sixers to start playing better and finish the season with somewhere between 40 and 50 wins. They have a few easy games over the next week that they should win (including tonight's game and next Friday's game against the Wizards that I'm going to!), so I expect the "improved" play to start right away. Of course, that's what I was expecting before the firing. Stefanski will get credit for shaking things up, and really it'll just be the players returning to their normal performance level.
As long as the Sixers start playing better I guess I won't be too bothered by the coaching change. After all, I don't follow the Sixers to watch the coach!
Update: I meant to post these two links from ESPN on the firing (by John Hollinger and Marc Stein) for a more detailed take on the firing. Take a look!
Saturday, December 6, 2008
20 games in
Well, we're twenty games into the season. A 9-11 record with a -0.3 point differential. Not exactly what we were all hoping for after the big off-season signing of Elton Brand. And not really in-line with the WP48 projection of the season I put together.
The big question is obviously "why?".
Taking a first crack at the question, I looked at the minutes per game for each player on the roster to see if that was the problem. Short answer: no. Based on current minute allocations and last year's WP48 for each player, the Sixers would be on pace to win somewhere between 43 and 53 wins (depending on which WP48 projection I use for Elton Brand).* Samuel Dalembert's playing less minutes, but other than that Mo Cheeks is generally playing everyone the expected minutes.
As for Dalembert playing less minutes, I guess that leads into the other possible explanation for the poorer than expected performance. You know, that the players just aren't playing as well as they have in the past. From what I've been able to tell (and what the news media has been reporting ), Dalembert and Andre Igoudala have both been playing worse than last year. I didn't do an in-depth look at their performance to see how much perception and reality matched up or check to see if anyone else's performance was way off, but a downturn in both of their performances could certainly explain the Sixers' performance so far.
Hopefully Professor Berri will take a look at the Sixers sometime in the near future and give us some answers!
*I did a rough estimate that did not take into account the extra minutes played so far this season in overtime.
The big question is obviously "why?".
Taking a first crack at the question, I looked at the minutes per game for each player on the roster to see if that was the problem. Short answer: no. Based on current minute allocations and last year's WP48 for each player, the Sixers would be on pace to win somewhere between 43 and 53 wins (depending on which WP48 projection I use for Elton Brand).* Samuel Dalembert's playing less minutes, but other than that Mo Cheeks is generally playing everyone the expected minutes.
As for Dalembert playing less minutes, I guess that leads into the other possible explanation for the poorer than expected performance. You know, that the players just aren't playing as well as they have in the past. From what I've been able to tell (and what the news media has been reporting ), Dalembert and Andre Igoudala have both been playing worse than last year. I didn't do an in-depth look at their performance to see how much perception and reality matched up or check to see if anyone else's performance was way off, but a downturn in both of their performances could certainly explain the Sixers' performance so far.
Hopefully Professor Berri will take a look at the Sixers sometime in the near future and give us some answers!
*I did a rough estimate that did not take into account the extra minutes played so far this season in overtime.
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.)
Sunday, November 4, 2007
The Reggie Evans watch- Game 2
Okay, Sixers games aren't entirely about Reggie Evans, but I am fascinated by his nose for the ball. In their second game, the Sixers defeated the Bulls 96-85. Evans played 29 minutes and had 9 rebounds. That's pretty good, and he wasn't even the Sixers best per minute rebounder. Dalembert had 11 rebounds in 31 minutes and Jason Smith grabbed 6 rebounds in 14 minutes. The guards also helped out the cause-- Igoudala grabbed 10 rebounds, and Willie Green (Willie Green!) grabbed 8. All in all, the Sixers rebounding in the first two games has been superb-- a 77% defensive rebound rate and a 40% offensive rebound rate. That offensive rebound rate in particular is pretty stunning.
Two other trends I noted from the box score: (1) Mo Cheeks is definitely sticking with the small line-up. The Sixers big men played 77 minutes out of the 96 minutes available to them. Two games still isn't proof, but I think we can see the trend. (2) In big games, Mo Cheeks is going to play Igoudala (45 minutes) and Miller (41 minutes) big minutes. Willie Green (38 minutes) also played big minutes, but from the box score it looks like he was having a pretty good all around game so his big minutes might have been an aberration (Igoudala's and Miller's big minutes confirm something we could have guessed, which is why I'm more willing to jump to a conclusion from one game.).
[oops- I thought I had posted this already, but apparently I just saved it as a draft.]
Two other trends I noted from the box score: (1) Mo Cheeks is definitely sticking with the small line-up. The Sixers big men played 77 minutes out of the 96 minutes available to them. Two games still isn't proof, but I think we can see the trend. (2) In big games, Mo Cheeks is going to play Igoudala (45 minutes) and Miller (41 minutes) big minutes. Willie Green (38 minutes) also played big minutes, but from the box score it looks like he was having a pretty good all around game so his big minutes might have been an aberration (Igoudala's and Miller's big minutes confirm something we could have guessed, which is why I'm more willing to jump to a conclusion from one game.).
[oops- I thought I had posted this already, but apparently I just saved it as a draft.]
Friday, October 5, 2007
Some more previews and predictions
I came across a nice preview of the Sixers by Marc Narducci. Nothing staggering, but he gives a nice run-down of the players likely to be competing for playing time this season. I will just pull out one paragraph from the preview to comment on:
Also, John Hollinger has posted his predictions for the season over at ESPN.com. The actually write-ups are behind the Insider subscription wall so I haven't read them, but he projects the Sixers to be last in the Eastern Conference with just 21 wins (and just one win better than the Clippers who he projects to have the worst record in the league). I think the Sixers will do substantially better than that, but I'd be curious to know what Holllinger's reasoning is for predicting such a terrible finish. If anyone reading has access to insider, let me know!
Dalembert will benefit from the team's offseason trade for rugged power forward Reggie Evans. He will provide next to nothing on offense but averaged 7.0 rebounds in 17.1 minutes for the Nuggets last season and could nearly double that average with the Sixers. Most important, he'll take some heat off -- and maybe fouls away from -- Dalembert by offering physical help on defense.I absolutely think Reggie Evans will help, but I'm not sure he'll really help Dalembert stay out of foul trouble. After all, my impression is that Dalembert gets most of his fouls because he's late on rotations. Not sure how Evans corrects that problem, unless he hacks the man before Dalembert can get there!
Also, John Hollinger has posted his predictions for the season over at ESPN.com. The actually write-ups are behind the Insider subscription wall so I haven't read them, but he projects the Sixers to be last in the Eastern Conference with just 21 wins (and just one win better than the Clippers who he projects to have the worst record in the league). I think the Sixers will do substantially better than that, but I'd be curious to know what Holllinger's reasoning is for predicting such a terrible finish. If anyone reading has access to insider, let me know!
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Oh yeah--Calvin Booth
Easy to overlook since he's probably not going to play substantial minutes, but the Sixers also picked up Calvin Booth last week. One thing Booth is not going to do is score--he averaged as many fouls as points last season (1.6). He's regarded as a defensive/shot-blocking specialist, but in looking at his numbers from last season I'm not sure that he deserves that reputation. Per 40 minutes, he averages 3.1 blocks, but only 8.5 rebounds and 7.5 fouls. That makes him a better shot-blocker than Samuel Dalembert (2.5/40 minutes), but a significantly worse rebounder (11.6/40 minutes). Plus, his extremely high foul rate makes him a bit of a liability--giving the other team lots of free throws isn't the best way to help the Sixers defense. And in case you were wondering, his WP48 last year was a measly .010 (remember, the average is .100). I don't know that the Sixers could have gotten anyone better (although I still think they should make the long-shot offer to Anderson Varejao), but I don't think Booth is going to be much of a help this season.
Friday, September 7, 2007
Ask and you shall receive...
Ask for more Sixers content in the comments, and look what happens.
Bad news: Samuel Dalembert has a stress fracture in his left foot and will be in a cast for three weeks. Thankfully, they expect him to be fully ready for the start of training camp.
I want to write more about events surrounding the Sixers, but not like this!
Bad news: Samuel Dalembert has a stress fracture in his left foot and will be in a cast for three weeks. Thankfully, they expect him to be fully ready for the start of training camp.
I want to write more about events surrounding the Sixers, but not like this!
Confusing spectacular defense plays with spectacular defensive players
In decrying what he considers the over-calling of blocks and charges in this post, Kelly Dwyer (filling in for Henry Abbott for the last couple of days at Truehoop) says:
Second, and more annoying to me, is that he seems to be confusing spectacular defensive players with spectacular plays. By complaining about the lack of high-flying blocks, he is really complaining about a lack of spectacular plays. But, quite frankly, spectacular defensive plays of this highlight-reel variety are normally the result of poor defense. If you're in proper position, your defensive play is normally going to look less spectacular than the recover play made by someone who was out of position. Samuel Dalembert's blocks often seem spectacular, but (as we discussed previously) they don't really help the Sixers defense that much because he's out of position so often. I'll take a spectacular defensive player who never makes the highlight reels any day over a player who makes "spectacular" defensive plays. But maybe I just care too much about my team actually winning games...
The calls are changing the game. Outside of a few big men, most power forwards and centers never leave their feet in order to challenge or potentially reject a shot. Why would they? All they have to do is slide underneath a player, fall down, and get a pat on the butt and praise from the TV commentators ("so heady, what hustle!") as his team gets the ball back and the shooting guard picks up his third foul of the first half. So the spectacular defensive players are dwindling, as are the spectacular all-out drives to the basket.I think there are few problems with his gripe. First, if the defensive player slides into position after the offensive player leaves his feet, then it is a defensive foul by rule. Always. The defensive player must give the offensive player a place to land. So he's complaining about a problem that doesn't really exist. The defensive players getting those charges? They were in position before the offensive player left his feet (or, at least, they were if we're assuming the refs didn't blow the call). There might be fewer out-of-control drives down the lane because the defenders are playing better position defense, but that is different that complaining about defensive players sliding underneath offensive players.
Second, and more annoying to me, is that he seems to be confusing spectacular defensive players with spectacular plays. By complaining about the lack of high-flying blocks, he is really complaining about a lack of spectacular plays. But, quite frankly, spectacular defensive plays of this highlight-reel variety are normally the result of poor defense. If you're in proper position, your defensive play is normally going to look less spectacular than the recover play made by someone who was out of position. Samuel Dalembert's blocks often seem spectacular, but (as we discussed previously) they don't really help the Sixers defense that much because he's out of position so often. I'll take a spectacular defensive player who never makes the highlight reels any day over a player who makes "spectacular" defensive plays. But maybe I just care too much about my team actually winning games...
Thursday, August 23, 2007
Dalembert puts up good stats
Unsurprisingly, Team USA put a shellacking on Venezuela last night. The final score was 112-69, and by all accounts Team USA was never really challenged after a poor shooting first quarter. Yeah, Team USA! This game doesn't really tell us much about how good Team USA actually is, but it's still always nice to get a victory.
In more important news (for Sixers fans, at any rate), it also appears that Samuel Dalembert had a good game for Team Canada. At the very least, he had a very nice boxscore line: 10 points (on 4-5 shooting), 10 rebounds, and 2 blocks in 24 minutes. I didn't see the game, but based solely on the boxscore I'm curious to know why Dalembert only played 24 minutes (out of a possible 40). Especially considering that no one else on Team Canada grabbed more than 3 rebounds, I would have thought that Dalembert would have played more. Still, Team Canada played Brazil (considered the 2nd best team in the tournament) tough (see the last item for a very brief description of the game) before finally losing 75-67. If this game is indicative of things to come, then perhaps Canada will make some noise in this tournament despite the absence of Steve Nash.
[Update: It appears that the reason Dalembert didn't play more was because of early foul trouble.]
In more important news (for Sixers fans, at any rate), it also appears that Samuel Dalembert had a good game for Team Canada. At the very least, he had a very nice boxscore line: 10 points (on 4-5 shooting), 10 rebounds, and 2 blocks in 24 minutes. I didn't see the game, but based solely on the boxscore I'm curious to know why Dalembert only played 24 minutes (out of a possible 40). Especially considering that no one else on Team Canada grabbed more than 3 rebounds, I would have thought that Dalembert would have played more. Still, Team Canada played Brazil (considered the 2nd best team in the tournament) tough (see the last item for a very brief description of the game) before finally losing 75-67. If this game is indicative of things to come, then perhaps Canada will make some noise in this tournament despite the absence of Steve Nash.
[Update: It appears that the reason Dalembert didn't play more was because of early foul trouble.]
Friday, August 17, 2007
What about the Sixers defense?
Last season, the Sixers ranked 18th in the NBA in defensive efficiency with a mark of 107.73. No real surprise that the Sixers weren't a great (or even good) defensive team last year, but I was a little surprised to see how they reached that ranking.
Most surprisingly, the Sixers were actually ranked 4th in opponent's turnover rate (DTOR). Despite forcing a high number of turnovers, the Sixers were a slightly below average defensive team because of their average defensive true shooting percentage (TS% = 16) and piss poor defensive rebound rate (DRR = 27). What explains this wide range of ability on our three major defensive statistics? Living in Boston, I didn't have many opportunities to see the Sixers play last year (to put it charitably, they weren't on national TV many times), so I can't really make an evaluation with a high degree of certainty. However, my best guess is that the Sixers defensive story begins and ends with Samuel Dalembert.
If you recall my post from yesterday, you probably remember that having mobile big men seems to play a big role in whether or not a team forces a number of turnovers. Dalembert is, if nothing else, extremely mobile for a big man. The top defensive teams that force a high number of turnovers are able to do so because their big men are mobile enough to help force the turnovers and to still recover quickly enough to be in a good position to help out defensively. If I remember correctly, one of the reasons Coach Jim O'Brien and Samuel Dalembert didn't get along well during O'Brien's stint with the Sixers was because O'Brien thought Dalembert was slow on his help defense rotations. These defensive numbers indicate to me that Dalembert is still slow on his rotations--he's mobile enough to help force turnovers and recover, but he doesn't read the game quickly enough to actually recover effectively. He still gets his blocks because of his athleticism, but he doesn't get enough of them to make up for his late rotations (thus the average DTS%) and his late rotations put everyone out of position for getting rebounds (thus the putrid DRR).
This story sounds believable to me, but like I said, I didn't actually get a chance to watch many Sixers games this past year. I'm being hard on Dalembert, but maybe that's being unfair to him. I tried to look at +/- stats from 82games.com to see if they shed any further light on the subject, but they weren't particularly helpful. The Sixers were worse with Dalembert not on the floor, but mostly that was because the offense was much worse when he was not playing (the defense was also worse, but the difference wasn't nearly as big). Assuming my intuition is correct, playing Dalembert might be the Sixers best option defensively (and looking at their roster this isn't hard to believe), but that option doesn't seem likely to lead to very good results unless something changes dramatically. In watching the Sixers play this year, we'll just need to make sure and pay special attention to the big man rotations on the defensive end of the court to see what is really going on.
Most surprisingly, the Sixers were actually ranked 4th in opponent's turnover rate (DTOR). Despite forcing a high number of turnovers, the Sixers were a slightly below average defensive team because of their average defensive true shooting percentage (TS% = 16) and piss poor defensive rebound rate (DRR = 27). What explains this wide range of ability on our three major defensive statistics? Living in Boston, I didn't have many opportunities to see the Sixers play last year (to put it charitably, they weren't on national TV many times), so I can't really make an evaluation with a high degree of certainty. However, my best guess is that the Sixers defensive story begins and ends with Samuel Dalembert.
If you recall my post from yesterday, you probably remember that having mobile big men seems to play a big role in whether or not a team forces a number of turnovers. Dalembert is, if nothing else, extremely mobile for a big man. The top defensive teams that force a high number of turnovers are able to do so because their big men are mobile enough to help force the turnovers and to still recover quickly enough to be in a good position to help out defensively. If I remember correctly, one of the reasons Coach Jim O'Brien and Samuel Dalembert didn't get along well during O'Brien's stint with the Sixers was because O'Brien thought Dalembert was slow on his help defense rotations. These defensive numbers indicate to me that Dalembert is still slow on his rotations--he's mobile enough to help force turnovers and recover, but he doesn't read the game quickly enough to actually recover effectively. He still gets his blocks because of his athleticism, but he doesn't get enough of them to make up for his late rotations (thus the average DTS%) and his late rotations put everyone out of position for getting rebounds (thus the putrid DRR).
This story sounds believable to me, but like I said, I didn't actually get a chance to watch many Sixers games this past year. I'm being hard on Dalembert, but maybe that's being unfair to him. I tried to look at +/- stats from 82games.com to see if they shed any further light on the subject, but they weren't particularly helpful. The Sixers were worse with Dalembert not on the floor, but mostly that was because the offense was much worse when he was not playing (the defense was also worse, but the difference wasn't nearly as big). Assuming my intuition is correct, playing Dalembert might be the Sixers best option defensively (and looking at their roster this isn't hard to believe), but that option doesn't seem likely to lead to very good results unless something changes dramatically. In watching the Sixers play this year, we'll just need to make sure and pay special attention to the big man rotations on the defensive end of the court to see what is really going on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)