SB Nation User Blog: Free Zarko

Interview with Keith Smart

Free Zarko — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 02:48:16 -0000

Q: Thanks for agreeing to talk with me, I know it's difficult to speak to fans at a time like this.

Keith: Yes, well, at first I was worried and didn't know whether I should. But Don said this is okay.

Q: That was nice of him.

Keith: Um, I think he gave the go ahead. That catatonic look usually means 'yes.' When he ignores me and tosses the frisbee to Lucky, I think that means 'no.' Being a coach is hard sometimes.

Q: Right...so how has the interim job been going?

Keith: Great! Well, mixed results. I'm not sure. I was told to keep saying we're too short handed to win, so I guess we're meeting expectations?

Q: You certainly are. A lot of fans are angered with the lack of playing time for Anthony Randolph. They cite statistics both advanced and rudimentary. Explain your reasoning for the lack of minutes.

Keith: Well, first and most obviously, anytime you can start a 34 year old who can't rebound
or block shots, you gotta do it! Lemme explain: Rebounding is silly and blocking shots leads to jumping, which, as Fitzgerald explains to CSN viewers, is the WORST thing a basketball player can do. Right now, we're feeding off Mikki Moore's steadying influence.

Q: Um...yeah. But what about developing Randolph for the future?

Keith: The future is NOW! Wins sell tickets, and we can't afford to throw away games with Anthony's out of control play. He'll have to play his way into the mighty Vlad&Mikki frontcourt. I don't see that ever happening.

Q: But the stats say he's better than those guys right now. Am I missing something?

Keith: Hoo-boy, you're missing a lot. You want stats? How about this, Mikki Moore is shooting over 60%! That's a lot of percent! Sure, he takes less than four shots per game, but that's part of the glorious plan.

Q: Plan?

Keith: Have you heard of Wilt Chamberlain? Well that's what Mikki will remind you of when we unleash him in the playoffs and he launches 25 shots per game! The defense won't know what hit em'!

Q: Right. And where does Vlad factor in here? So far his production hasn't made up for the loss of Stephen Jackson.

Keith: Wow, wrong and wrong. He draws opposing PFs out of the paint. Once that happens something magical occurs that leads to wins. Plus 'Forward-Left-the-Paint" is Don's favorite drinking game.

Q: But Vlad's PER is 8.52, and he's thought to be a small forward. Should he really get over 30 minutes of playing time at the 4?

Keith: Don's other favorite drinking game is 'Frustrated-Fan.'

Q: What about your future coaching prospects? Does the league respect what you've done?

Keith: Who cares! As long as I employ this small ball strategy, Don gives me a pat on the head. Well worth it, even if I destroy my career!

Q: This has been informative. So do you think John Wall could be in our future?

Keith: I don't think we'll lose that much, but who knows...we could use a new CENTER!

Poll

Do you like Smart's coaching so far?

Vlad the Inhaler (he sucks)

Free Zarko — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 12:57:44 -0000

Courtesy of Golden State Worriers, this pretty much drives home my point:

Let me begin by saying Vlad has the physical tools of a good NBA player. He's 6-10 and used to have a three point shot. He could wake up tomorrow and turn it all around. And he wouldn't be the first player to repair his image amid Warriors chaos. Odds are against it, though. My last post dealt with some fairly objective Anthony Randolph stats, but my Radman doubting has a subjective attribution: Fringe NBA hopeful Paul Shirley used to constantly joke about Vlad's apathy and lack of work ethic. This can be dismissed as uninformed NBA gossip, but Vlad hasn't improved since 2003 (this is where subjectivity meets cold, hard evidence of suck).

Phil Jackson used to call Vlad a 'space cadet,' and it's not hard to see why. Passes fly into the stands with alarming frequency, so much so that Vlad cranked out 'the worst turnover rate at his position' last year, according to ESPN's John Hollinger. In the past, Vlad's shooting offset some his spacey ways. But it's been awful of late. He plays decent perimeter defense, which would be a plus....expect he's always playing power forward or center for us. Expect him to keep getting bludgeoned by the Joakim Noah's of this world. For all the hate directed at Maggette (yes, he sometimes drives me crazy too), I wonder how Vlad Rad escapes criticism. He can't shoot, can't pass, can't run, can't jump, can't block, can't steal, can't defend the 4 position. And is rumored not to care or work hard. Yet he earns the starting spot upon arrival. What the hell am I missing here? Am I misreading his PER of 9? Should I be hypnotized into lauding Vlad whenever he slobbers all over his mouthpiece like a horse chewing an apple?

I'm not trying to deliver a cliche, 'That guy's a bum!' argument. I just think management sends a bad message when they play someone who can't contribute and probably doesn't care. Since the Warriors coaches are supposedly so intent on rearing Randolph like a child, I'd like to know what the lesson is here. At least the impotent Mikki Moore looks like he wants it. And that's the sad state of Warrior Land positivity: At least the comically washed up player playing over the young talent looks concerned, unlike the apathetic starter who might be even worse.

Some bitter, semi-related post Bulls game thoughts....

I don't even know why I care anymore. I don't know why any of you care anymore. I guess I just love basketball and I love the Bay, and I can't not watch the flashy car wreck on my TV. Perhaps it's because some primal part of me loves to yell at Don Nelson through my TV. My intellectual curiosity pushes me towards finding the 'why' behind the badness. I suppose it's happening because people in large organizations subconsciously work within whatever pattern solidifies. Maybe the pattern of needlessly alienating and trading promising players set in awhile ago. Of course this isn't a conscious goal of Warriors management, but it sure could be subconscious. I'm grasping at straws here, because so little makes sense. My intellectual curiosity is no match for Warrior Land madness.

Following this team is like watching a friend stab himself, and then seeing the friend turn the knife on you. Does the Warriors organization hate its fans? Why else would a team mired in a lottery season play Mikki Moore over Anthony Randolph? Ticket revenue is down 22%, and the coach/es insist on starting the two worst players in the rotation and playing ESPN's #6 ranked sophmore a meager 22 minutes per night. Then we have to listen to mumbled paternalistic Gary St. Jean sermons about how Anthony Randolph must 'earn his minutes.'

Well the Warriors sure are earning their losses. They're earning them every time Vlad Rad plays minutes at center. They're earning them every time they start Mikki Moore in a real life NBA basketball game. It's apt to say they're 'earning them' because the Warriors coaching staff is losing games while employing inherently losing strategies. The path of regular basketball knowledge (i.e. least resistance) would win games that 'all SG' lineups lose. Losing like this takes effort. The Warriors are giving up games using bizarre strategies, not backed by basketball metrics. And they're doing this night after night, to the detriment fan interest. Doing the same ineffective thing over and over again is one definition of madness. They might have to create a new word for what ever the hell this is.

Poll

What will be the higher number this year?

"Out of Control" Randolph

Free Zarko — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 09:28:38 -0000

(I decided this post works better when people read onlxn's ode to Mikki Moore's craptitude)

Not a day goes by without a Bay Area media type sagely opining that Anthony Randolph should play 'under control,' or blaming Randolph's lack of PT on 'out of control' play. Whenever the 20 year old plays well, he's given the backhanded compliment of having played 'under control' that evening. I understand that the sentiment can come from a good place, but I chafe at the paternalistic tone with which Gary St. Jean uses it. Actually, I chafe at anything Gary St. Jean says, and I hate how it always seems like he just woke up from a nap. Anyway, I fear that we're starting to drink the toxic Kool Aid that comes from our coaching staff, the same staff that works under management that has institutionalized destructive madness: We're starting to believe that Randolph hasn't earned a starting spot and is having a bad second year. Poor Nellie, he had such high hopes for the kid.

We're warming to this theme because humans seek order in their lives and can't stand the thought of authority figures doing irrational things. We want to think that Nelson has a tough love plan, that Randolph must be hurting the team, or that Mikki Moore brings veteran magic dust. Our brains have trouble understanding why highly paid, motivated people would sacrifice game after game starting washed up scrubs like Vlad and Mikki. Poor management, with the injuries they're trying hard in a bad situation!

And we know how this thing usually goes in Warrior land. Management touts player, player gets blamed for team problems, player gets traded for crap, player flourishes elsewhere. So before that happens with Anthony Randolph, I want to ask a simple question:

How bad has his second season been?

Let's check Randolph's stats and compare them to the 20 year old seasons of three realistic comps: Lamar Odom, Josh Smith, and Gerald Wallace.

First, here are Ant's numbers so far:

G    GS MIN    FG           FG%    3P        3P%    FT           FT%    STL    BLK    TO
19    1    22.3    4.2-9.7    .427    0.1-0.3 . 200     3.6-4.3    .829    0.80    1.20    1.4

    PF    OFF    DEF    TOT    AST    PTS
    3.1    2.4       4.6       7.0   1.1      11.9

I would add the Hollinger stat of 18.97 PER, which is higher than Randolph's 16.94 total from last year. How did Anthony accomplish this while being so damned 'out of control'? The free throw line has a lot to do with it. Ant's reckless ways are getting him there 4.3 times per game, an impressive total a 22 minute run. It also helps that Randolph made nearly 83% of his freebies. This aides in offsetting his mediocre shooting percentage (so far his biggest flaw, but something that tends to improve with age). Here's the part where I add that Vlad is averaging .7 FTs and Moore is racking up .5 per game. Only Donaughy could help those two get to the line at an average rate.

Obviously Randolph's main contribution isn't at the line. He's out there to rebound. And he's done that to the tune of 7 boards per 22.3 min run. Throw in the solid 1.20 blocks as a bonus, and we have that shot blocking, rebounding power forward we always needed....if we weren't so totally stacked right now at that position (I hope Vlad Rad doesn't give a snippy Hall of Fame speech like MJ did!).

There is one particular area where Randolph isn't under control: He's picking up 3.1 fouls per game. The fouling issue usually comes with the territory for shot blockers, but Randolph makes the occasional away-from-the-ball hack, and he leaves his feet too often.

As for the turnovers, well they're at a staggering 1.4 per game (gasp!). Per 36 minutes, that's a "whopping" 2.2 TOs. Oh no, a super careful PG like Monta won't stand for that kind of blundering! Okay, I'll stop with the sarcasm. Just know that it's a decent rate, especially for a 20 year old kid who frequently takes it to the rack. Now for the three Randolph comps at age 20:

Lamar Odom

G     GS     MP     FG     FGA     FG%     3P     3PA     3P%     FT     FTA     FT%
76     70     36.4     5.9     13.5     .438     0.8     2.2     .360     4.0     5.5     .719

ORB     DRB     TRB     AST     STL     BLK     TOV     PF     PTS
    2.1     5.7       7.8     4.2        1.2       1.3         3.4       3.8      16.6

Josh Smith

G     GS     MP     FG     FGA     FG%     3P     3PA     3P%     FT     FTA     FT%
80     73     32.0     4.1     9.7     .425     0.4     1.4     .309    2.6     3.7     .719

ORB     DRB     TRB     AST     STL     BLK     TOV     PF     PTS
2.2       4.4    6.6       2.4      0.8     2.6       2.0      3.3     11.3

Gerald Wallace

G     GS     MP     FG     FGA    FG%     3P     3PA   3P%     FT     FTA     FT%
47     7     12.1     1.9     3.9     .492       0.0     0.1     .250     0.8     1.6     .527

ORB     DRB     TRB     AST     STL     BLK     TOV     PF     PTS
0.8        1.9          2.7     0.5    0.5     0.3    0.9          1.4     4.7

I'd say Anthony Randolph matches up pretty well with those guys. The criticism is really what's out of control here. That, and our criminally insane coaches who think height is a disadvatage in basketball.

Poll

Should Anthony Randolph get 30 plus minutes of PT?

On Mikki Moore, Anthony Randolph, and 'Done' Nelson

Free Zarko — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 01:05:27 -0000

To hear people defend Don Nelson for his ridiculous decision of starting Mikki Moore is to hear people mindlessly flail at justifying an authority figure's actions (He MUST have some justification, he's the coach!). At this point in his career, Moore is simply the worst NBA player I've ever seen in person. I am not being hyperbolic. I have watched NBA basketball since 1990, and Moore is the worst. He gives you nothing. No rebounding, no shot blocking, no scoring, no defense. Nothing. John Hollinger puzzled over why the guy is still in the league, and I share in his confusion.

He somehow committed 3 turnovers, 4 fouls, while scoring zero points in 18 minutes. So no, going with Moore is not about 'winning now,' it's about winning never. It's 4 on 5 and it's inexcusable. Mikki's PER is getting so low, it's starting to look like a respectable ERA. And there's no reason to be surprised, or assume things will turn around for the 34 year old.

Mikki evades criticism by simply doing nothing. He's the only player who can play within his limitations by doing nothing, and it throws casual fans off his scent. You tend to forget he's there....because he's not really there. He spent the first half standing next to the paint, occasionally catching a rebound tapped to him in the way a helpless baby bird would receive his mother's regurgitation. He doesn't 'do his job,' unless his job to send Chirs Kaman to the All Star game. Mikki was a prime player in opening the third quarter floodgates and he should be getting more flack for his invisible man act.

Now for Randolph. He had a poor showing, often looking spastic on offense. Unlike Moore's act, his mistakes are perceptible (they are mistakes, not the absence of action). But he did some things that helped, some things that we (Nelson team followers) have been conditioned to devalue. He rebounded well, and forced five turnovers in an awful mismatch with Chris Kaman. In short, he got a minus 8 (usually a bad plus minus, but not in this abortion of a game) for a reason.

We need to start actually valuing the things Randolph (and Biedrins) do, instead of being so scoring obsessed. Rebounds matter. Rebounds win games. So does blocking/altering shots. When Nelson says, "We're going to get out rebounded in every game," it's important to remember that he's choosing this losing strategy-- the Warriors aren't resigned to it.

So no more of the Moore talk, please. There is no logic to Nelson's actions other than masochism. Perhaps Nellie doesn't feel he deserves the win record, and is undermining his own success. Maybe he's just drunk. Maybe it's both. I don't know what's happening inside his head, but I do know that we don't deserve this guy. Stop justifying the actions of someone who either wants to lose, or is doing a damned good imitation of a self saboteur.

Poll

Do you ever want to see Moore start over Randolph again?

Start AR

281 votes

Start Moore

27 votes

308 votes | Poll has closed

What to nickname the Curry/Ellis tandem?

Free Zarko — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 16:55:04 -0000

I need ideas, people. Big ideas.

There has been much discussion of what to nickname Curry. But we could do something bigger, something better: We could foment team harmony through granting Curry and Ellis a double nickname. Think about it. Shaq and Wade coexisted because they were Diesel and Flash. When he was with Kobe, only Shaq had the nickname(s). We all know how that went. A nickname tandem bridles egos. It is a constant reminder that players work together, need each other, and are better for the situation. Let's do our small part to mitigate the rumored Monta dissatisfaction over a new 'playmaking point guard.' I ask everybody here: What should we call the Slasher/Shooter Curry Ellis combo?

Slash (Monta) and Burn (Curry)?

Remember the Light Skins (probably too needlessly racial)?

Crackle (Monta) and Pop (Curry)? In reference to MoPed ankle injury we could call Ellis 'snap' as well.

Rain (Curry) and Lightning (Monta)?

Tweedlethree (Curry) and Tweedledunk (Ellis)?

Layup (Monta) and Trey-up (Curry)?

I'm sure you could do better, let's find that perfect nickname!

Poll

What's the best nickname for the Curry-Ellis Tandem?

Slash and Burn

103 votes

Tweedlethree and Tweedledunk

30 votes

Rain and Lightning

58 votes

Something you came up with

27 votes

Lay up and Trey up

49 votes

267 votes | Poll has closed

The Warriors and the PER Triple Crown

Free Zarko — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 00:35:21 -0000

Warning: This post will be nerdy. It will reference empirical fact, yet mix it with basketball hokum. Please don't take it that seriously.

In a league where you're only as good as your best three guys, it makes sense that the NBA's elite teams often have featured three guys capable of posting a plus 20 Player Efficiency Rating. San Antonio (Manu, Timmy, Tony), and L.A. (Kobe, Pau, Andrew) have done it, and the other big boys are damned close (Disney World, Boston). The Cavs are a notable exception, but they compensate by having an otherwordly PER machine in LBJ.

Well I got news for ya: The Dubs can make a run at the hallowed PER triple crown. Monta has gotten to the 19 mark and so has Biedrins. These two are just entering their respective primes, and I believe that at least one if not both of these overly maligned players can reach PER glory by season's end.

I personally think the MoPed incident stirred an overreaction from many Dubs fans. Please, just take a deep breath and remember that the handchecking rules were changed a few years back. No one can stay in front of Monta (least of all, Monta, but that's a different matter). I hear constant hand-wringing about Ellis not being a "true point guard." I'm sorry, did I miss something? Have I enterd a time warp where players still sport tighty-whitey-length shorts, and the spectre of cocaine hangs over the entire league? A bizarro world where fans and coaches alike can chain smoke cigs court side? We're in an era of smallish effective score-first PGs (Brooks, Nelson, Parker, Terry, Mo-Will, Sessions, etc.). If Ellis can get 25 pts, on 50% shooting next year, then all the power to him. But I digress...

So where could that extra plus 20 PER come from? I'm hoping (we're all hoping) Randolph. AR nabbed an impressive 16.94 rating in his rookie year, and could easily punch over the 20 mark. If not AR, then perhaps the oft-criticized Brandan Wright. BW notched a 18.77 last year and should improve once the Warriors move his coffin bed to the practice facility (He looks like Dracula, it's a lame joke I know...also, he looks like Devin Harris stretched from all angels, okay, sorry, moving on). Wright, who has earned a bust label from some-despite looking like a more athletic LaMarcus Aldridge in limited playing time-could be our unsung path to the vaunted PER trifecta.

The overarching point of this post isn't really about PER. It's that this team is fine. Fine enough to not blow up for some ersatz superstar savior (I'm looking at you, MicroSTATure). Our historical flaw has been impatience. We never see our rebuilding through to a logical conclusion. Right now, I'm looking at a team brimming with young talent, fully capable of a playoff run. Better defense is needed, but that usually comes with age and an actual team defense philosophy. We built for the future. The only thing standing in the way of future success is myopic meddling.