SB Nation User Blog: biggity2bit

Quick and dirty Rubio projections

biggity2bit — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 17:04:27 -0000

So I read through Lu's Draft Outcast page on Rubio, and using his numbers I wanted to figure out what some per game values are for Rubio. We'll see how close I get whenever he get's around to posting them himself.

I had to make some assumptions, so it's not perfect (for example, I assumed Ricky would shoot 44% on two's), but I thought it would be fun to get a ball park estimate of what might be in store. The assists and TO's also seem way off, but maybe that just shows how great Rubio is at passing (and how aggressive).

So, here are the numbers, in points/assists/turnovers per minute increment.

12 minutes per game: 4.8 pts, 7.04 assists, 2.67 TO

24 min/game: 9.61 pts, 14.08 assists, 5.34 TO

36 min/game: 14.41 pts, 21.11 assists, 8 TO

The assists and TO's seem waaaaaay too high to me, but near as I can figure it Lu's Assist and Turnover rates are the number of assists/TOs per 100 possessions. I did some digging at arrived at the TWolves averaging 92 offensive possessions per game, which is what I used for making the calculation. If there's an error, someone please let me know and I'll update the numbers.

Even if it is correct, Rubio won't come anywhere near averaging those numbers. However, it probably is a clue at just how great his potential as a passer is in the NBA. Adding yet another two cents into the Flynn debate, Rubio doesn't project to be more than an outstanding scorer in the NBA, but he does project to be an outstanding passer and facilitator. Lu, in his page on Flynn, finds the closest correlation to Flynn is D.J. Augustin, who has similar physical comps, attitude and BB IQ comps, and leadership skills. Augustin, however, is a much better outside shooter and poorer at the rim player.

DX's year after analysis said that Augustin's biggest weaknesses were elevating on jump shots and finishing at the rim, and suggested that he need to do whatever he could to improve his explosiveness. Flynn is all explosiveness and rim finishing with a poorer outside shot than Augustin. In some ways, reading the DX retrospective on Augustin makes me think that Flynn is a superior prospect to Augustin, as his only real weakness (in comparison) is his lack of outside shot. Flynn's athleticism, first step, and finishing ability is superior to Augustin's, and his two point ability is on par and perhaps just below Augustin's. D.J's strength is his outside game, Flynn's his ability to take guys off the dribble and finish at the rim.

So, here's my question or thought about pairing Ricky and Flynn. You have one guy who looks like he'll be an all world passer and set-up guy, with adequate scoring capability (especially when he can take open jumpers, at least according to Lu). You have another guy who excels at getting to the rim, can also knock down some open jumpers, and can also dish. It may not look like you would expect, but I can begin to imagine a system where Ricky helps set up Flynn either cutting to the basket already or faking a cut and taking a jumper, etc. On the flip side, Flynn's ability to handle and pass the ball might help Ricky more offensively as he'll get a lot of open looks as defenses respect Flynn's rim finishing ability.

Is it perfect? Probably not, but with the right coach who is offensively open-minded and willing to tinker with his system to maximize his player's abilities (e.g. the anti-Wittman), Rubio and Flynn could lead an extremely dynamic and fast paced offense. Not sure where Al fits in with this, but these guys could play well together potentially as long as you don't rigidly restrict them to preconceived roles, and instead focus on using their strengths to maximize everyone else's strengths.

Poll

Do you want to see Ricky and Flynn play together?

One fan's draft take

biggity2bit — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 16:01:50 -0000

Seems like there's a lot of discussion about whether this draft was a good one for the Wolves or not, with most media types ending up judging it incomplete--as in they don't feel it's possible for them to judge it yet without seeing what happens next.

For the most part I agree with this take. We've all been saying here at Hoopus that this draft will reveal a lot about Kahn's vision for the team, and I think this draft is very informative in that regard--especially in its incompleteness.

In my opinion the biggest single need on the Wolves' roster is simply talent. They desparately need players with the legitimate ability to be starters. So what did they do? They drafted two legitimate starters at 5 and 6. Yes, they play the same position, but I still think the choice to draft two guys with legitimate starting ability and legitimate star potential was the right choice. Maybe Rubio and Flynn co-exist, maybe one of them gets traded. They both have desirable retained value beyond this year, which is more than you can say for just about anyone else on the Wolves roster.

The Lawson trade also illustrates this trend--I would have liked to keep him somehow, but adding another first rounder next year is fantastic. Arguably we'll be in a position next year where we'll know more clearly what we need and what we don't, and having an extra first may be the clincher we need to make that happen.

I don't know much about Ellington, but from what I read no one doubts his scoring ability, just his athleticism and ability to create for himself. Well maybe those are significant red flags, but maybe he'll be a great compliment to one (or both) of our new points (or Al or Love). Dude doesn't need to create, just needs to hit 3-5 shots a night. Trading Calathes? I think we could've gotten more for him later on. Again, though, drafting who we needed to in order to get future assets. The Euro guy? Sounds like a reach, but maybe he develops. Throw away pick at this point.

I like this draft because the strategy I take from it was this: talent is talent, and talent will either help you win ball games or give you the ability to amass more options in the future. The whole thing strikes me as calculated--if we take Calathes and keep him, great. He might be awesome, but can be stashed in Europe for a year too. If someone else really wants him, then great--make us an offer. Same thing with Lawson. Same thing with Rubio. Flynn and Ellington both serve a need, and both look like they should be contributing players for a long time.

In short, I'll take it. No Paul Grants, no William Avery's, no Ndudi Ebi's, no Brewer's (at 7). This team won't be built in a day. Next year's draft is going to be huge.

Poll

Do you buy in to the idea that the Wolves need talent, no matter the position?

Trade Oden for Love and #6?

biggity2bit — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 16:58:51 -0000

Hey Blazer's fans,

There's a huge debate going on over at Canis Hoopus (Twolves blog) about whether the Wolves should trade Kevin Love and the #6 pick to y'all for Greg Oden. One of the criticisms on the board has been that we over value our own players and that we probably haven't seen enough of Oden to get a good read on how he's progressing.

My question is, as Blazer's fans, how do you feel about this trade? Would you do it, or would you, as one commenter on our board said, laugh the proposal off the table?

Please discuss.

Poll

Would you trade Greg Oden for Kevin Love and the #6 pick?

Yes

49 votes

No

702 votes

Doesn't matter, we already screwed the Twolves by keeping Penn!

30 votes

781 votes | Poll has closed

The real reason McHale's future uncertain?

biggity2bit — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 20:45:15 -0000

I don't know if many, or any, Hoopus readers ever visit Minnpost.com, but they have a great collection of reporters and columnists over there, including many of the too-expensive castoffs from the Strib and PiPress. One of those is the venerable Steve Aschburner who covered the Wolves for the Strib for a long time before leaving for SI (might be ESPN, can't remember) before returning to MN. Anyways, I've always thought that Steve wrote great stuff and didn't always pander to the team, so I am inclined to believe (moreso than less) what he wrote today regarding McHale's future with the team and the decision to hire Kahn:

"[T]here is another dynamic at work, insiders say, involving the team's power structure."

Insiders will tell you that the decision to stay away has been McHale's choice as much as Kahn's or anyone else's in Wolves management. Kahn acknowledged to me Wednesday afternoon that he and McHale have been "circling" each other — he didn't even quibble with the word — in meeting twice so far, without conclusion, to decide if McHale will be back. After all, what worked for McHale and Taylor when the big guy was VP of basketball ops — a handshake deal, annual ponderings whether he should continue — won't work as an NBA head coach.

Those 30 positions require contracts, at far heftier salaries ($3 million annually and up), with time horizons that make it clear to the players in the locker room that the coach is going to be around beyond this season or this week. Or, at least, management has a financial incentive to keep the coach around beyond this season or this week. That McHale doesn't have that protection from the Wolves — along with the assurance that money coming free under the salary cap will be spent on roster improvements rather than backfilling for the owners' losses — makes it understandable that he wouldn't be committing to the Wolves before they similarly commit to him.

But there is another dynamic at work, insiders say, involving the team's power structure. Rob Moor, one of Taylor's sons-in-law, is the Wolves' heretofore low-profile, low-impact "CEO." He has been taking a more prominent role lately, however, to the point of spearheading the ostensible GM search that led to Kahn's hiring to a loftier title. Moor's power — or at least hands-on activities — has been expanding. And this is in contrast to most previous years, when the basketball side was run by McHale, Saunders and others almost as an independent fiefdom, with a direct line up to Taylor. Moor rarely had any traction internally with that crowd.

There's more reasoning (and prefacing), but that is the gist of Steve's article. I have to admit to not knowing much about Moor at all--or his role with the team. If what Aschburner is suggesting is true, then it might help explain why a '2 week process' turned into a 5+ week one, and why many of the candidates might have turned them down despite Glen Taylor swearing that they would have complete control over the FO and McHale's return. If Moor wanted more power, and Lindsey et al realized that they would either be working for--or have to work through--Moor, then even their supposed full authority over basketball operations would have strings attached.

Aschburner ends by suggesting that McHale get an opportunity to return as HC as well as making an ominous observation:

If McHale doesn't get [the opportunity to return as HC], some fans will delight in the outcome, thanks to past failings in a different role. But it will be a decision made for the wrong reasons, a knack this franchise already has shown way too often.

Poll

Is this article and quotes disconcerting to you?

Yes--it's just more of the same. I thought we were over this.

8 votes

No--this is just hearsay and innuendo. No substance to it.

4 votes

Maybe--we don't know enough about how Kahn. He might be a good fit anyways.

4 votes

Yay nepotism! Like Cain and Abel, it's going to be a McHale and Moor deathmatch!

5 votes

21 votes | Poll has closed

Should Twins sign Glavine?

biggity2bit — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 13:58:50 -0000

Should Twins sign Glavine?

Braves release Glavine. Should the Twins be interested?

Ugh, but silver lining?

biggity2bit — Tue, 19 May 2009 03:55:58 -0000

I know I'm grasping at serious straws here, but anything helps after we were b*tch slapped by Portland again. Jerry Z just posted an article about Penn turning us down, and at the end he raises what could be perhaps the only silver lining out of all of this:

They also could start their search over again and entrust the June 25 draft to a scouting staff headed by Hoiberg that has been working on it all season already. They also could conceivably return to Lindsey or Pfund, which seems less likely.

Let us only hope that PG rethinks this and approaches Lindsey again, allowing for more control and more sweeping changes. Either that or he better be hoping to pull a Wilf and fly Hinkie here and not let him leave until a contract is signed.

Hopefully Hoiberg is awesome with personnel. We could use a lucky break more than once every 20 years (thank you KG).

Poll

Well, what's left, and who gets your vote?

Hinkie, no matter what--or we're all OKC fans.

14 votes

Lindsey. Give him whatever he wants, just get him.

14 votes

Blanks. He hasn't turned us down yet, right?

5 votes

Just go with Hoiberg and Stack. It's going to suck anyways.

8 votes

41 votes | Poll has closed

Comparing 2009 to 2008: First 30 games

biggity2bit — Sat, 09 May 2009 18:51:01 -0000

This post compares RS and RA allowed through the first 30 games of 2009 and 2008. What I am interested in is whether 2008's offensive production was really an anomoly, or a sustainable trend. Much has been about BA with RISP, as well as other factors. This analysis is much simpler than that. I am simply comparing the runs scored and runs allowed through the similar number of games, and letting the greater community derive what conclusions you will from it.

With that said, here are the numbers:

2009 2008

14W, 16L 16W, 14L

RS: 135 RA: 158 RS: 124 RA: 130

As you can see, the 2009 offense has produced more runs so far than the 2008 offense. The win total is also close, with 2008 taking the lead by going 5-0 in games 26-30, whereas 2009 we went 2-3 in games 26-30.

Perhaps the most interesting thing is looking at the average, median, and standard deviations of the data sets.

Offensively the numbers are very similar:

2009 2008

Average RS: 4.5 Average RS: 4.13

Median RS: 4 Median RS: 4

Stdev: 3.49 Stdev: 3.37

Looking at the runs allowed, however, tells the story of 2009 in a nutshell:

2009 2008

Average RA: 5.27 Average RA: 4.33

Median RA: 5 Median RA: 4

Stdev: 3.19 Stdev: 3.19

In essence, our pitching staff/defense is almost a full run worse than last year's team. If we can get our pitching staff to return to its 2008 form, we should be poised to make a good run in the AL Central.

Terms:

Average--I think we all know what average is

Median--50% of the data set is above this number, and 50% is below it. Helps cancel out the effect of outliers in a data set (for example, would minimize the effect of Cleveland's 20+ run game, giving a better overall idea of their offense).

Standard Deviation (stdev)--tells us how variable the data set is--a higher number means that there was not much consistency, whereas a lower number means that most of the numbers are pretty close to each other.

Poll

What are the long term performance prospects of our pitching staff?

Good. We're already seeing better performances. They'll end up better than last year.

10 votes

Decent. Some starters will improve, some regress. It's the bullpen that worries me.

62 votes

Poor. No consistency coupled with regression and a suspect bullpen = doom.

8 votes

80 votes | Poll has closed

NOOOOOOOOooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!

biggity2bit — Wed, 06 May 2009 16:10:58 -0000

So where do I sign up to be an OKC fan?

From Jerry Z:

Sounds like we’re finally closing in on a new Wolves GM.

I’m hearing this morning that the Wolves have offered the job to David Kahn, the former Indiana GM since leaving the Pacers in 2002 has owned NBA Development League franchises and worked to bring major league baseball to Portland. I’m also hearing the only sticking point might be whether his wife will move to Minny.

Poll

Is this the final straw in your Twolves fandom?

Yes

6 votes

No

12 votes

Maybe--nothing's final yet

12 votes

30 votes | Poll has closed

Unknown new GM???

biggity2bit — Fri, 01 May 2009 18:55:09 -0000

Courtesy of Jerry Z:

We’re moving past that two-week window in which Glen Taylor said he wanted to name a new GM/VP Basketball Ops.

He and team CEO Rob Moor long ago passed behind the Moon and continue to maintain a prolonged period of radio silence on the subject, an approach that does nothing to create any buzz about the team in what remains of their fan base, but I’m hearing a new name today out of left field for the job.

I’m working to confirm. I consider the tip credible and reputable and intriguing. Could be the guy. Stay tuned here to the blog and our web site as I work on it.

Twins Offense 2009 vs 2008

biggity2bit — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 14:52:27 -0000

A lot has been made about the Twins offensive struggles this season, and especially the dip in their batting average with RISP, so I thought I'd do a quick compare and contrast between this season and last season through 21 games.

2009 2008

W-L: 10-11 W-L: 10-11

RS: 85 RS: 76

RA: 113 RA: 85

Shocking, isn't it? We've actually scored 9 more runs this year than last year at the same point in the season. And despite the atrocious run differential of this year, we have the identical record from 2008.

So what gives? Is batting average with RISP truly the primary culprit? Well obviously not, at least not in this small sample comparison. No, what has doomed the Twins more than anything this year has been, 1) the bullpen, and 1B) the starting pitching.

I couldn't figure out how to get the numbers of just the first 21 games of last year's pitchers, so I'm using all of 2008 (just an FYI).

2009 2008

ERA whip ERA whip

Starters 5.13 1.36 Starters 4.32 1.36

Relievers 6.29 1.56 Relievers 3.91 1.35

In a nutshell, last year's bullpen was better than the starters, and starters were pretty good. In Twinsland that equals more wins than less. This year the bullpen is noticeably worse (thus far) than the starters, who (thus far) have been not very good. That suggests that our 10-11 record may be a bit flukey, but it also may suggest that once the pitching improves moderately our record will improve to +.500 ball.

The demotions of guys like Humber will definitely help (he was very bad) the relief situation, and the addition of (thus far) solid performances from Mijares and Morillo will also help right the bullpen. More importantly, as Perkins normalizes (the SP numbers this year would be a lot worse with him) back to his career norms, the improvement of Slowey and Liriano will help a lot. Throw in modest improvements from Blackburn and especially Baker and the SP staff begins to look a lot better.

The one question I have for people who understand these numbers a lot better is how is it that the starters have the identical whip this year as last year, but are allowing .81 ERs more this year (sorry, don't have FIP data available)? Luck? Something with FB/GB%? Line drive rates? Please discuss.

Poll

Having seen the numbers, which offense will be better, 2009 (everyone can't be bad for an entire season) or 2008 (classic Twins overachievement?)?

2009 will be better--modest improvements to role players make the difference

12 votes

2008 was better--they got consistently lucky with the bounces, and that's the difference

4 votes

16 votes | Poll has closed