SB Nation User Blog: YaHeard

NEWS: Richard Jefferson traded to the Spurs

YaHeard — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 19:32:27 -0000

Story here.

Basically, the Bucks shed payroll and the Spurs go deep into the luxury tax to add another scorer to help out ol' Timmy.

My question is this: If the Spurs were looking to add an overpaid/mediocre (yet high scoring) player, why didn't the Warriors offer up either Corey Maggette or Stephen Jackson?

The Bucks are in nearly the same situation as the Warriors: a non-playoff calibur team with a large unwarranted payroll. Why aren't we trying to make moves like this?

Poll

Who does the trade help more?

Spurs - Richard Jefferson is the player they need to get them over the top and back into the NBA finals.

105 votes

Bucks - The salary dump was a smart move and will benefit them in the near future.

55 votes

160 votes | Poll has closed

How to become a playoff team (and why the Warriors weren't)

YaHeard — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 07:09:46 -0000

John Hollinger of ESPN has a set of sortable meaningful team statistics out for the 08-09 regular season. Here's a link.

I took a look at how the Warriors did in comparison to everyone else:

Pace - 1st
Assist Ratio - 27th
Turnover Ratio - 13th
Rebound Rate - 29th
Offense Rating - 11th
Defense Rating - 28th

We were in the bottom 3 in passing, rebounding, and defense.

Then I wanted to see just how important these categories were for playoff teams. The following shows how many "above-average" teams in this category actually made the playoffs. (ex: Only 13% of the "uptempo" teams in the NBA made the playoffs.)

Pace - 13%
Turnover Ratio - 60%
Assist Ratio - 73%
Rebound Rate - 73%
Offense Rating - 73%
Defense Rating - 87%

To summarize, the most KEY element for a team to make the NBA playoffs is defense. 87% of the above-average defensive teams in the NBA made the playoffs. We ranked only 28th. Another key element to making the playoffs is rebounding, in which we ranked 29th. Yet another key element is passing, where we ranked 27th. We can all thank Don Nelson for putting out lineups that can't rebound, can't defend, and for encouraging an isolation-oriented offense.

Poll

So what do we do?

20ppg + 20ppg + 20ppg + 20ppg + 20ppg + 20ppg = 120ppg... We need more scorers!

13 votes

We need a PG that will pass and players that can rebound/defend.

57 votes

We need a new coach whose approach to the game translates to winning basketball.

18 votes

We need new ownership that cares about more than just putting out an "exciting" product.

40 votes

We need more beer!

36 votes

164 votes | Poll has closed

Two Realistic Trade Proposals

YaHeard — Sat, 09 May 2009 08:30:28 -0000

First trade:

Crawford (19mil / 2 yrs)
- to CHA for -
Mohammed (13mil / 2 yrs)
May (3.7mil / 1 yr)
Future 1st Rounder

Charlotte is lacking a go-to scorer since the departure of JRich. Crawford could be to the Bobcats what Harrington is to the Knicks, and he fits nicely into their lack of depth at SG.

Mohammed's and May's contracts combined are an improvement over Crawford's. Plus they can replace Kurz and Davidson on our depth chart. Who knows, they may even be useful for us. Currently, they sit at the end of the bench for the Bobcats because of Diaw, Wallace, Okafor, Radmanovic, and Diop.

The first round pick is nice too, protected or not. The main point of the trade is to get Crawford off the squad to avoid him pulling another "Al Harrington" (distraction to the team), without making our cap situation worse, and without bringing in someone who will demand minutes and take them away from our young players.

Second trade:

Maggette ( 39mil / 4 yrs)
- to POR for -
Blake ( 5mil / 1 yr)
Webster ( 20 mil / 3 yrs)
Future 1st Rounder

If there's any position the Blazers should want to upgrade talent-wise (offensively), it has to be at SF. Even though they're taking on Maggette's contract, they're essentially just upgrading from Webster and his contract to Maggette and his. The Blazers can have Jerryd Bayless and Sergio Rodriguez replace Steve Blake at PG. We ask for a future first rounder because the Blazers are probably the last team that needs more young talent.

We get our (much needed) veteran, pass-first PG. We also get Webster, who I'm not crazy about. But we can limit his minutes or stash him on the bench and he won't be an issue like Maggette might be if we tried limiting his minutes. Much like the Crawford trade, the main point of this one is to get minute-hungry expensive vets off the team, without hurting our cap situation, and getting a pick in the process.

These trades aren't as flashy as the "Crawford/Maggette for AK47" (best case scenario) or "Everyone for Bosh/Amare/Boozer" trades, but they're alot more realistic. No team is going to be willing to trade away good talent for Crawford or Maggette, that's just the way it is in this economic climate. The best thing we can do is try to improve our cap situation, get some future draft picks, complete our depth chart (we only have 11 guys on the payroll now), get a vet PG, and free up minutes for our young talent.

Like many have pined for in other threads, this is essentially "trading them away for a bag of chips". Plus future draft picks.

A worse alternative is to stay put and watch Crawford and Maggette (and their agents) demand minutes and cause a distraction in the locker room, when we all know those minutes should go to other players.

PG Ellis / Blake / Watson
SG Belinelli / Morrow / Azubuike
SF Jackson / Webster
PF Randolph / Wright / May
C Biedrins / Turiaf / Mohammed

It might not be much of an improvement over last season's roster, but I don't think it could do any worse than 29 wins. The keys are that we increase our financial flexibility, add future draft picks, and allow the young core to grow as a whole.

A Statistical Look at the Season

YaHeard — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 22:45:20 -0000

From basketballvalue.com, here are our adjusted +/- ratings for the season:

Turiaf     3.71
Jackson      1.59
Morrow          1.15
Belinelli     -0.09
Biedrins      -0.55
Azubuike     -1.80
Crawford    -1.90
Watson      -1.98
Ellis            -2.22
Randolph -3.59
Maggette -4.51

Williams, Wright, Davidson, Nelson, and Kurz did not play enough minutes to qualify.

An explanation of the adjusted +/- stat, from 82games.com:

Adjusted +/- ratings indicate how many additional points are contributed to a team’s scoring margin by a given player in comparison to the league-average player over the span of a typical game (100 offensive and defensive possessions). These ratings are considered “adjusted” since they start with the simple +/- rating and apply a regression model as outlined by Rosenbaum to adjust for the impact of all other players on the court.

It's far from a perfect statistic, due to small sample sizes, but it's more meaningful than alot of stats out there.

Surprises? Sure there are. Morrow's positive +/- as an undrafted rookie is astounding, considering that most rookies in the league usually post heavily negative ratings (Randolph, Beasley, Love included). We've all been witness to his lights out shooting, solid rebounding, and effort on D.

Jackson's rating seems spot on. When he was in there dribbling the ball off his foot and turning it over, we were bad. But when he shut it down for the season and we had no ballhandlers or playmakers, we were even worse.

I'm not surprised about Turiaf's rating. At all.

Belinelli showed great improvement this season, his +/- for the last two years combined is -3.80, so you can imagine how bad it was during his rookie season.

Injuries and the departure of his point guard Baron Davis hurt Biedrins' season a little bit. Without a real PG, he didn't get as many easy buckets, which hurt his scoring efficiency.

Azubuike is a bit of an enigma.

Crawford, Watson, and Maggette are spot on.

I'd chalk up Ellis' rating to the fact that he was never 100% healthy, and that defenses were probably focusing on him more now that Baron's gone.

If '0' is considered the average NBA player, then we had a whole lot of below average this season. I just wanted to share some statistics that many fans aren't regularly exposed to.

The NBA's Worst

YaHeard — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 20:39:41 -0000

Instead of criticizing our own players all day long, let's change it up for a second. The Kwame Brown vs. Andrea Bargnani debate in the other thread sparked some interesting conversation.

Who are the worst or most over-rated players in the association?

This is my list of the NBA's worst/over-rated starting five:

PG - Derek Fisher
Can't shoot (40% career FG%). Can't rebound (3 rebs/36). As a 200 pound PG, can't penetrate into the lane or set up his teammates in the offense. Can't defend anybody in the league, while creating the illusion with his stance that he is actually playing defense. All he can do is spot up and shoot the 3. I suspect he's only starting in the league because he's a Lakers' fan favorite and he's a nostalgia symbol representing the old Lakers' glory days.

SG - Allen Iverson
I hate to put him on this list, I really do. He's amazing to watch, but he's just bad for whatever team he's on. He's the poster boy for undersized, volume scoring, poor-shot-selecting SG's. This year we've seen the Nuggets rise as one of the dominant teams in the West after his departure, and we've seen the Pistons fall from perennial ECF contendors to non-factors after his arrival.

SF - Andrea Bargnani
42.3% FG% from a 7-footer isn't going to cut it, whether he has range beyond the halfcourt line or not. Moreover, he can't defend the rim, can't rebound, can't defend in the post or on the perimeter. His increase in playing time is the root cause of Toronto's fall from grace in recent years.

PF - Udonis Haslem
Can't score in the post or shoot from the perimeter. Can't handle the ball on the perimeter well enough to be a wing. As a 6'8" PF, can't defend the rim or defend the post or guard on the perimeter well. All he can do is crash the offensive boards and hit the 10-footer. He is so over-rated by national telecast announcers for his "energy" and "hustle" that it's sickening. He's the polar opposite of versatility.

C - Tyson Chandler
He's useless on offense without CP3. He's not a great defender either for someone 7'3". Plus he thinks he's the ish.

So who is your worst 5 in the NBA? Let's keep it to starters too

Anyone else bothered by that win?

YaHeard — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 06:58:35 -0000

On any other day, in any other season, I would have savored Wednesday night's victory against the Nets.

But, as I was watching it, I just noticed alot of things that soured the experience. Things that I was looking forward to seeing, but didn't. And when the game was over and we had survived another 4th quarter collapse, I came away thinking that it's nice to win once in awhile.. but this was the definition of a meaningless victory. And, worse than that, we're headed in the wrong direction again.

Don Nelson said he would rest the vets and give some experience to the young players for the rest of the season, so we have a better idea of what we have going into next season. Crawford played 46 minutes and Jackson played 45 minutes each. Belinelli, Morrow, and Randolph got just 30 minutes combined. Not too mention that he didn't bench any vets this time either.
Don Nelson said he would start playing a bigger lineup (so we could defend and rebound for a change). He trotted his signature smallball lineup (4 guards and one "center") for more than 75% of the game. We couldn't defend for beans.
Don Nelson made it known that Jamal Crawford wasn't in our future plans, because Monta is our feature guard, which suggests that we want Crawford to opt out. Giving Crawford 46 minutes, leaving him in at the end of the game (and benching Monta), and putting the game in his hands seems to send a different message. Why is Crawford, who isn't supposed to be here next year, taking the big shots? Why is Monta on the bench during crunchtime?
I need to mention this again. The win was truly meaningless. And Nelson sacrificed many things just to get it. If we had played the young players regular minutes, experimented with Monta at the point during crunchtime, experimented with a traditional "non-small-ball" lineup, and not given 46 minutes to Crawford; and happened to get the win too, then I would not be so irked about it.

You know what it feels like? This feels exactly like the beginning of the season. We're taking steps backward. The only difference is the Nets are a horrible team and they gave us the game in the 4th quarter. Any average NBA team would have capitalized on our usual "4th quarter collapse due to Jackson's 40+ minutes tired legs", as the average NBA teams usually have this season.

Does this win just feel really wrong to anyone else?

Sign Mikki Moore

YaHeard — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 00:16:33 -0000

The Kings just waived Mikki Moore. Warriors should sign him, here's why:

Maybe he doesn't want to move out of his home in Northern California, and would sign with us for a discount. Something around the BAE (~$1.8mil) (if we still have it).
Career per 36 stats: 55% FG, 8 RPG, 1 BPG, 12 PPG
He has an adjusted +/- over the last 2 years of +0.63. A positive plus/minus for a backup big man is pretty rare.
He's a legit 7 footer with energy and athleticism to keep up with us
He's a 10 year vet, a big man Nelson could actually trust out there in crucial situations (so we don't have to have Maggette out there at PF)
He would be the 5th PF/C on our depth chart, ensuring that we can almost always have 2 big men on the court regardless of injuries (unlike last night).
We'd have some more depth and flexibility in the offseason, in case we wanted to trade a big or two for a really good player.
He's not a waste-of-space practice body like Rob Kurz and Jamereo Davidson are. Nelson could actually give Moore minutes.

Poll

Should the Warriors try to sign Mikki Moore?

Yes!

258 votes

No!

62 votes

I want my California tax return dammit!

81 votes

401 votes | Poll has closed

Trades which would turn the W's into a playoff team

YaHeard — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 07:20:20 -0000

Trade #1:

Jamal Crawford, $8.6m
Stephen Jackson, $7.1m

for

Andrei Kirilenko, $15m

Next season, the Utah Jazz will have $70m invested in just 11 players. This means they will not be able to sign free agents for more than the MLE. By trading 1-for-2, they can fill up their depth chart better. Kirilenko is an under-utilized $15m they have coming off the bench. Also, the Jazz are also weak at SG/SF right now and could use the extra firepower. Jamal Crawford could start at SG and backup Deron Williams at PG. Jackson could start on this squad as well and they would bring Korver off the bench.

This would fix our logjam of swingmen. As everyone here has said before, Kirilenko the ideal forward for Nellieball. He's a defensive/rebounding monster, can run the floor, make the 3, handle the ball, and pass well.

Trade #2:

Corey Maggette, $8.3m
Kelenna Azubuike, $2.9m

for

Lamar Odom, $11.4m

The Lakers front office has to make a decision on Lamar Odom soon. His contract and Trevor Ariza's contract are both expiring after this season. Based on what I've seen from them putting Odom on the bench and limiting his minutes, and the evolution of Ariza's game; it seems like they would re-sign Ariza and keep him for cheap rather than give Odom a big contract. Having Ariza and Odom is redundant for them. Maggette and Azubuike could add different dimensions to their squad. Maggette can be the go-to scorer when Kobe rests, and I'm sure they know that Sasha Vujacic is just no good and Azubuike would be a better backup at SG.

Just like Kirilenko, Odom is a guy GSOM always talks about as being perfect for our style of play. Multi-talented forward who can guard multiple positions, stretch the defense, pass, and handle.

Your Golden State Warriors:

PG: Monta Ellis / CJ Watson
SG: Marco Belinelli / Anthony Morrow
SF: Andrei Kirilenko / Anthony Randolph
PF: Lamar Odom / Brandan Wright
C: Andris Biedrins / Ronny Turiaf

We'd have one of the best defensive/shot-blocking/rebounding frontlines in the league.
Everyone in our starting lineup would be a unselfish player, and good passer.
No more ballhogs and turnover machines.
We'd be less dependent on the 3-ball, but our starting lineup would still feature 4 guys who can make the 3 and stretch the D.
This would provide all the opportunity in the world for Monta Ellis to get his shots and put up superstar numbers in this league.
This would allow for Belinelli, Morrow, Randolph, Wright, and Watson to get their minutes and prove themselves; plus they'd have defensive studs Kirilenko and Odom to learn from.
We would be a fast-pace, fast-breaking team once again. We'd block so many shots, deflect so many balls, force more misses, secure more rebounds, and feed Monta for the easy cherry pick on the other side.

What do you think, GSOM?

Poll

What do you think?

We'd be a great team with these trades, and they make sense for both parties.

32 votes

We'd be a great team with these trades, but Utah and LA wouldn't make the trades.

141 votes

We'd be a crappy team with these trades, we need our 20 point scorers!

157 votes

330 votes | Poll has closed

The Scary Truth about Don Nelson

YaHeard — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 04:47:05 -0000

I just realized why things are the way they are in Warriorland, it makes me sad and it's going to make you sad.

As I'm sure everyone knows, Don Nelson is the second winningest coach in NBA history, currently at 1290 wins. Lenny Wilkens is #1 at 1332. So the Don is just 42 wins short of holding that title.

Now it makes sense that Don Nelson signed that bogus extension. Now it makes sense that he's still coaching his way into senility.

It makes sense why we extended Stephen Jackson to keep him here and happy, why we traded away Harrington for a worse contract, why we threw too much money at Maggette, Ellis, and Biedrins... It makes sense why Don Nelson won't use playing time to develop the rookies. It makes sense why we didn't go into rebuilding mode when EVERYONE KNOWS WE SHOULD HAVE, but instead we've locked down our roster as if we're talented enough to contend for a championship.

Don Nelson will not let this team rebuild, he cannot afford to let this team rebuild; he needs his 42 wins, even if it costs us the next 3 losing seasons to get them.

It's not about the team, it's not about the fans, it's not about the future of the Warriors franchise anymore. It's about Don Nelson destroying our franchise to become known as "the greatest coach in NBA history".

DON'T PANIC, I still see a route to success

YaHeard — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 09:52:07 -0000

There is still hope guys, no need to panic.

Baron Davis

Don't be so distraught over what happened. Honestly, I'd be more sad if the Warriors offered him that $65 million. Take a minute and realize how paralyzing that contract can be. Do you really expect Baron to be healthy and play hard for most of those 5 years? History has shown that he won’t; and history tends to repeat itself. Baron definitely resurrected our franchise and will always be one of my favorite players, but giving him that kind of contract is purely a desperation attempt to try to steal some of the LA spotlight. Good luck Clippers.

Gilbert Arenas and Deron Williams

There seems to be a general consensus that we NEED a superstar PG to replace Baron Davis. But think about this one: when was the last time Nash, Deron Williams, Chris Paul, Jason Kidd, Gilbert Arenas, or Baron Davis contended for a championship? I don’t know what the NBA analysts are smoking, but there’s no such thing as “the league moving towards being PG dominated”. These superstar PG’s are fun to watch, but big men still win championships. Shaquille O’Neal, Tim Duncan, Kevin Garnett, BIG MEN still win championships. We couldn’t even get past the first round of the playoffs with Baron at the helm, I see this as a clean slate of a team to work with now. When we offered Gilbert Arenas a max contract I threw up in my mouth and thanked the heavens that he was already committed to the Wizards. Keeping our payroll low and waiting for Deron Williams or Lebron James is also stupid. First of all, they’re not going to come to a crappy team with no chance of winning a championship. Secondly, if we don’t get them, we just wasted those “waiting years” for nothing.

Elton Brand

In all honesty, he’s going back to the Clippers. He didn’t opt out of his contract to go back to a losing team. The dude wants to try to win now. He’d be great if we could get him, but we’re not.

Al Harrington

I will repeat this verbatim for the rest of the offseason. DO NOT TRADE AL HARRINGTON, DO NOT TRADE AL HARRINGTON, DO NOT TRADE AL HARRINGTON. His value will be tremendously higher next season at the trade deadline. Don’t jump the gun and waste that opportunity. Keep Al on the team until his contract becomes expiring, there’s no reason to trade him away now just to get chump change in return. We can trade him for a real player next season at the deadline (think Pau Gasol for Kwame Brown, think Dale Davis for Baron Davis, etc). If Mullin caves in and trades Al right now when he’s worth nothing then I’ll really know for sure that this front office doesn’t care about putting together a winning team.

Josh Smith

He’s definitely the best free agent available, but signing him would severely stunt the growth of Anthony Randolph and Brandan Wright. Plus we’re still paying Stephen Jackson. Josh Smith is redundant, he’ll just take away minutes from our existing players.

Andre Iguodala

I don’t get what all the hate on Andre is about. He shoots solid percentages (45% fg, 33% 3pt), and he produced solid numbers last season (20 ppg, 5 rpg, 5 apg, 2 spg). He puts up production comparable to Baron at his best and he’s young and he’s healthy and he’s a good sized guard. He’s a hard worker, unselfish, and a good guy to have on the team. This is someone I WOULD give $65 million / 5 years to.

Shaun Livingston

It is essential to take a risk on this guy if Monta is our future franchise cornerstone. He’s one of the only guys in the league that we can successfully play next to Monta; he’s a big guard that can guard SG’s and distribute and run the show as the PG. I’d offer him $35mil/5 years with a team option for 2009/2010 just in case he doesn’t return from the injury as the same player. That’s slightly more than the projected ~$6mil MLE so only a few teams (76ers, etc) would be able to outbid us. It will be low risk because of the team option, and I doubt Livingston would see the potential to make $35mil anywhere else right now.

You’re 2008/2009 Golden State Warriors:

PG Ellis / Livingston / Watson

SG Iguodala / Ellis / Belinelli

SF Jackson / Iguodala / Randolph

PF Wright / Harrington / Hendrix

C Biedrins / Harrington / Perovic

That will be a fringe playoff team, maybe even better depending on how Wright develops. It’s actually a way better defensive and rebounding team than last year’s because of Iguodala and Wright in the starting lineup (as opposed to Baron/Harrington). Baron’s 20ppg will be replaced by Iguodala’s 20ppg. If Ellis, Iguodala, and Jackson all commit to being partial distributors they can all be 4-5 apg-type players and our offense can run smoothly without a “true point”. And when our offense gets stagnant we can bring in Livingston to get the ball moving again. This roster provides all the opportunity in the world for Wright to develop, and we still maintain a high level of guard talent and moderate competitiveness in the West. We have our talented guard trio of Ellis, Livingston, and Iguodala locked in for the future and we still keep our trading pieces when that All-Star PF/C does becomes available to us.