I've already bitched about this, here and elsewhere.  And I get that our top two centers are hurt, and that there may be good reasons for being conservative with Randolph, and that starting Chris Hunter would probably be a little hasty. I get that Mikki doesn't play as much as the phrase "starting center" suggests, and that every team has to give a bad player 15-20 minutes now and again.  I even get that he's a nice guy who's playing hurt, and that he's trying to help us, and that he's taken Hunter under his wing.  I get all that, I really do.  

But holy hell, Mikki Moore is killing us.  Let's sift through the wreckage here.

We'll start with the obvious: Mikki can't score.  He averages 11.8 points per 48 minutes, a tiny number -- he's tied for 35th out of 43 NBA centers who've played significant minutes, and if you correct for our fast pace, he's more like 38th. Still, he shoots well when he shoots (.569 from the field), and he passes pretty decently for a center (third among centers in assists per 48 and A/TO, though nobody's setting the world on fire in either category)... at least Mikki plays within his limits on offense.  Besides, a number of good players -- Jason Kidd, Anderson Varejao, Chuck Hayes, Thabo Sefalosha -- score as rarely as he does.  You can still be a useful player if you do other things really well.  Does Mikki do anything really well?

Well, he sure doesn't rebound.  Eighty players who ESPN lists as centers have taken the court for NBA teams this year.  By rebounds per minute, Mikki is the 73rd-best rebounder of those eighty, and of the seven who are worse, only three have played for more than half an hour total.  He would rank 71st out of 90 amongst power forwards; he would rank 24th out of 66, only slightly above average, amongst small forwards.  Again, these rankings don't correct for pace... if anything, they overstate his contributions.  So he doesn't score, doesn't rebound.  What else do we got?  Defense, mebbe?

Mikki rates a little better in shot-blocking, but only a little... 61st among centers, by ESPN's reckoning.  Steals?  58th among centers, again significantly below average.  Blocks and steals don't necessarily equate with good defense, of course... a tight man defender can shut down an opponent in ways that don't show up on the traditional stat sheet.  But looking deeper, this explanation doesn't seem to apply to Mikki.  Per 82games.com (whose numbers are a couple days out of date), through our first 18 games, our opponents shot significantly better (55.8% to 53.3%) and scored more efficiently overall when Mikki was on the floor.  All the evidence, statistical, anecdotal and otherwise, suggests that Mikki makes our defense a good bit worse.

"Okay, so Mikki doesn't score, rebound or defend.  He at least doesn't foul much, right?  After all, if you never do anything, you're not going to trigger many whistles."  If you're Mikki Moore, you are!  Mikki ranks 10th in the league in fouls per minute amongst guys who've played a significant amount.

"Well, maybe Mikki returns the favor.  Maybe he gets to the line a lot himself.  That could balance out all the opponents he sends to the line."  No.  Dear God, no.  Mikki has played 321 minutes... in that time, he has earned a tolal of nine free throws, of which he has made five.  Let's be clear on this point: in almost seven full games of basketball, he has netted us five points from the line.  Fifteen NBA players give their teams more points from the line per game than Mikki has given us all season.  He doesn't score, or defend, or rebound, or draw fouls, or avoid fouls... he may very possibly be the worst player in all of basketball.

The upshot of all of this, most insane and chilling stat of all?  Here ya go.  We have played Mikki-free lineups in 66.5% of our minutes, just under two-thirds of the time.  In that time -- the majority of our minutes so far, encompassing Jack drama and smallness and shorthandedness and all of it -- we get outscored by 0.6 points per 48 minutes.  That's not ideal, but it's not terrible, either... a team with that point differential would be expected to go something like 39-43.  When Mikki's in?  We get outscored by 13.6 points per 48 minutes.  That is terrible.  No NBA team has ever been outscored by that much over the course of a season... a team with that point differential would be expected to go something like -- no joke -- 4-78.  Sans Mikki, we're close to being a .500 team.  With Mikki, we're the worst team in the history of basketball by a country mile.

This franchise needs a lot of things.  A coaching change would help.  A new defensive philosophy would help.  Shooting more threes, as I rambled about yesterday, would help.  But the easiest change of all is obvious -- it lies in a single conversation that starts like this: "Mikki, we couldn't help but notice that you've been playing in pain.  Go ahead and have that surgery you were considering."  If we get Mikki off the court, we will have a dramatically better chance of winning every night.  There's just no good reason to deny ourselves that chance.

(Slightly douchy self-promoting note: I originally wrote this for a blog a buddy of mine and I started, Golden State Worriers.  It's like GSOM, only worse and less fun!  Come check it out if you like, no worries if you don't... we are no threat to the Mothership. And this is the only time I'll bore y'all by mentioning it here.)

-----------------------------------

Looking at the Warriors' league-wide ranks in various statistics is always pretty amusing, as we can be found near the very top or very bottom of most of the categories. Thus far, this season is no exception: we play the fastest pace of any team, we're the worst-rebounding team, we're the next-to-worst defensive team. We lead the league in steals and forced turnovers, but only Indiana turns it over more often per game than us. Only two teams get blocked more often per game than we do.

All of these rankings should sound pretty intuitive: we're a bunch of little fellas, scurrying around with no rhyme or reason. You can practically hear "Yakety Sax" when you watch us play. And while we may have the spunk of a half-naked British policewoman, we would need a brilliantly efficient offense to overcome our various deficiencies. We don't have one -- despite all the storm and fury and Montaness and Morrowing, our offensive efficiency is 15th-best in the league, dead average. Wussupwidat?

For help, let's turn to Dean Oliver's esteemed Four Factors, the four attributes that most contribute to a team's offensive success. Those factors: shooting, limiting your turnovers, offensive rebounding, and the frequency with which you score free throws. Defensive success can be measured inversely -- good defenses make their opponents shoot poorly, force a lot of turnovers, and keep their opponents off the offensive glass and off the foul line. But this is a Warriors blog, so let's not depress ourselves with talk of "defensive success". It'll be a while till we stop giving up eighty thousand points per game... let's just see where there's room for improvement on offense.

Per KnickerBlogger.net, our rankings in the Four Factors: 7th in shooting (51.6% eFG), 18th in turnovers (16.1 per 100 possessions), last in offensive rebounding (21.4 OREB%), 16th in converting at the line (23.4 free throws made per 100 field goals taken). At first glance, it's not clear that there's much room for improvement here. If you account for pace, we're not actually that bad at taking care of the basketball, and with a rookie and a pocket-sized two handling the playmaking duties, we're not likely to shoot up the rankings in that department. More sanely designed lineups would boost our offensive rebounding a bit (MORE RANDOLPH AND HUNTER, PLEASE), but we're basically screwed there until Biedrins comes back. Getting to the line more often? It'd be nice, but Morrow, Curry and Watson hang out on the perimeter for a reason, and in 300 minutes, Mikki has only gotten to the line nine times. Again, bigger and saner lineups would help (MORE RANDOLPH AND HUNTER, PLEASE), but we already knew that. 

It doesn't seem like this exercise has brought anything to light. I mean, it's not like we can improve our shooting. We're already shooting pretty damn well -- in fact, if we maintain our current .477 field-goal percentage, it'll be the highest for the Warriors since Webber's rookie year. There's no real way to improve on our scoring efficiency... is there?

In fact, there is. There's something we can do, a simple strategic change that could go into effect as early as tonight, a change that would absolutely improve our offense and our chances of winning every night.

The Warriors need to shoot more threes.

I'm not saying they should take one or two more a game. I'm saying they should take, like, ten more a game. Twelve wouldn't hurt.

We currently take 17.8 threes a game, 18th in the league, and when you account for pace, we fall even further behind; only 20.5% of our shots are threes, putting us 20th in the league. The Magic take 35.1% of their shots from behind the arc. We need to be like them. Now.

The eFG% that denotes shooting quality in the Four Factors stands for effective field-goal percentage... unlike regular FG%, it credits you for the extra point your three-pointers give you, which is why it's the best way to gauge effective shooting. Making threes at a 35% clip is better than making twos at a 50% clip, so if you can shoot the three competently, it's a pretty effective shot. After the dunk, the layup and the free throw, the three-pointer is the most efficient shot in basketball. In fact, it's so useful that taking lots of threes is positively correlated with winning, even if you don't shoot them all that well. Yes, really. No, really. And that shouldn't come as any surprise to Warriors fans. We led the league in 3PA/FGA just two years ago, with a much worse array of shooters than we have now.

If there was ever a roster meant to go whole-hog on three-point shooting, it's this one. We're 5th best in the league in three-point shooting as it stands. Our few remaining bodies include C.J. Watson (career 3P% .392), Vladimir Radmanovic (.382), Stephen Curry (.370, .412 in college), and Anthony By-God Morrow (.481), who -- let's be perfectly clear -- is on pace to be the best three-point shooter in the history of professional basketball. Monta's got an above-average percentage so far this season. Even Maggette can hit 'em. Yes, it's gross when he shoots threes. But his career percentage is .321... Baron's is .322. I'd sure rather see Maggette shooting from 23 feet than from 20.

It's not like this requires much of a shift. We've been living on drive-and-dishes and jump shooting already... we just need to be more energetic about taking those jump shots from long distance. Monta DRIVES and either SCORES or kicks it out, Morrow, CJ, Vlad and Curry LET IT RAIN, Maggette perhaps occasionally LETS IT RAIN, Randolph and Hunter BANG DOWN LOW, Mikki SITS, and the Warriors PROFIT. Sure, teams will start to cluster around us on the perimeter and we'll get a couple threes blocked per game. You got a better idea?

Even in these darkest of days, there are adjustments that can be made. We can claw our way back a bit closer to respectability. All we have to go is gun more from the outside. We're the Golden State Warriors. Should that really be all that hard?

Really and truly.  The recent ugliness shouldn't obscure the fact that you gave us some awesome moments.  As a wise man once said, "I'll never forget you and love you in spite of your faults/The good and the bad, I want to remember it all."  I know how you love your Waylon Jennings, Jack.

You brought swagger to a team that had forgotten what it felt like.  You reinvigorated Baron.  You covered for hundreds of defensive lapses (early on, anyway).  You mystified Dirk Nowitzki.  You nailed threes on fast breaks and laughed as you ran back down the court.  YOU ENABLED US TO DUMP MURPHY AND DUNLEAVY!  All that stuff was awesome.

Did you go out like a jackass?  Sure.  But it should be noted: your jackassedness was not solely your fault.  Robert Rowell gave you a contract extension befitting a star; Don Nelson gave you the huge minutes and offensive leeway of a star.  If you think you're better than you are, it's partially because this franchise did too, and foolishly told you so.

Good luck in Charlotte.  If you kickstart that team the way you kickstarted ours three years ago, the NBA will be a much more entertaining place.

Fare thee well, you lovable, maddening, crazy, crazy man.  It has not been boring.

A thought prompted by one of DFiB's and my patented ramble-offs.

So things got pretty dire pretty quickly up front.  Biedrins is out for at least two weeks, according to the latest reports... Ronny could conceivably come back as early as tonight, but even if he does, we've only got three big men, one of whom is close to useless.  We need to do something about this.  It'd be great if we could wring a big out of whatever deal gets Jack off our hands, but it's not clear when that deal will happen... it might not happen till December or February, and we need help now.

A complicating factor is that we don't have many roster spots available.  Almost every spot is filled by either a rotation guy, (Biedrins, Ronny, AR, Wright, 'Buike, Maggette, Morrow, Jack, Monta, Curry), a useful expiring contract (Law, Speedy) or a guy who can't yet be traded (CJ, Mikki).  But there is one spot left to play with.

Devean George is currently hurt, and even healthy, would give us nothing on the court.  He's one of the worst offensive players who still has a job in the NBA, his fading lateral quickness has made him a non-asset on defense, and he rebounds horribly for his size.  We wouldn't get any value from playing him.  I don't think we'd get any value from packaging him into a bigger trade, either... his $1.6M expiring contract is only our third-biggest, and you don't see teams taking on bunches of little expirings in trades, due to roster constraints.  We could just let his deal expire, but I'm not sure what the point would be... even if we managed to dump Jack for a '10 expiring, we'd only be a wee bit under the cap, essentially in the same MLE territory we'd be in otherwise.

Simply put, Devean George isn't really worth anything to us.  We should turn his roster spot into a big body we could use right now.  There are three way to do this:

1) We could simply drop George and pick up the best available big we can find.  He doesn't have to be great.  Even if he's worse than Mikki Moore, he'd still help us right now... better that some big scrub waste fouls on Shaq than Maggette or somebody.  We're starting to face some bigger teams.  We're not going to last long without a fourth big body we can use.

2) We could trade George to a team looking to save a tiny bit of dough, for a big whose contract is a year longer. Possibilities on that front: Alexis Ajinca of the Bobcats, James Johnson of the Bulls, Hamed Haddadi of the Grizzlies.  All three guys have failed to make their teams' rotations thus far; all three play for franchises that might want to shed '10-'11 payroll for one reason or another; all three have some potential; most critically, all three are not Devean George.  It's more than possible that these teams wouldn't want to punt on these guys' potential so quickly (although I'd bet Haddadi's available, even with Thabeet's injury)... we might get hung up on if we offered these trades.  That doesn't mean it's not worth making the calls.

3) We trade George for a big who also expires this year, sending money along to make it worth the other team's while.  Essentially, we use George to buy a player, in much the same way the Raptors used George to buy Marco from us.  Devean and cash to the Heat for Jamal Magloire?  Devean and cash to the Nets for Sean Williams?  Devean and cash to the Blazers for Juwan Howard?  Devean and cash to the Raptors for... dare I say it... Patrick O'Bryant?

I'm not gonna lie.  None of these options are pretty.  But in my mind, they're a lot prettier than playing Cleveland, Boston, Portland, Dallas and San Antonio in eight nights with two credible big men and Mikki Moore, which is exactly what we have to do starting Tuesday.  That stretch is gonna be ugly either way, but it's going to be soul-killingly horrible unless we add another big body.  Dumping Devean George seems like the best way to add that big body.

This four-day layoff came at a pretty inopportune time.  Usually you don't have a lot of time to dwell on a bad loss, because another game pushes it aside; thanks to our odd early schedule, we've still got a while to go till we can wash the taste of that Suns game out of our mouths.  It's got a lot of us feeling worried and cranky.  And to be sure, there are issues aplenty: Jack's a headache, Randolph's screwing up again, Monta's slowing himself and the team down by trying to play point guard, and we're already razor-thin in the frontcourt, two games in.

Still, I feel good about this season.  I like this team, and I like our future.  Here are five reasons why.

1) Stephen Curry!  I am not saying that he'll be Steve Nash.  I'm not saying he'll be an All-Star.  I'm not even necessarily saying he'll be an above-average point guard.  But I think we've seen enough to say that *we have a point guard*, a guy who can play and defend the position credibly.  That's a great, important thing for this franchise... it means we don't have to live and die with Monta's development.

2) Kelenna Azubuike!  Hot damn, he's looked fantastic... glad to hear he's been practicing with the first unit, because he absolutely deserves to be considered for a starting job.  There's of course a dark cloud to this silver lining: I think it's pretty much a no-brainer that 'Buike will opt out of his contract this summer.  That adds urgency to the drive to trade Jack, as we'd ideally get a clear sense of what we have in Morrow and 'Buike before we'd decide whether or not to extend them.  Right now, 'Buike's making a pretty compelling argument that we should at least think about keeping him around.

3) Andris Biedrins!  For all the talk of the MJM trio's selfishness hurting Curry, I'd say Biedrins has actually been the most affected... there hasn't been any sustained effort to get him involved in the usual screen-and-rolls of years past.  But I think Biedrins has looked pretty good out there, and in particular, his passing seems noticeably better.  His assist rate took a jump last year, and while we're only two games in, considering the smoothness with which he's been finding people, I'd expect another little jump this year.  That'd good be, not only because it'll make him a better player, but because it may make Nellie more willing to give him consistent starter's minutes.  Biedrins will never be a Nellie-friendly type of player, but I'd improved passing would make him a lot more palatable to the big man.

4) Don Nelson!  I'm not going to pretend that I think that Nellie's doing a stellar job... any athletic team with defense as woeful as ours is not being coached perfectly, and Nellie continues to think that Jack's more useful than he is.   But I do think that Nellie's doing an overall *good* job, as opposed to last year.  He's generally playing his best players and deploying lineups that make sense; as much as I hate seeing Maggette at power forward, I can at least understand where it comes from when the alternative is Mikki Moore.  Nellie's going to war with a rookie at the point at the risk of alienating a star veteran; I think that's the right call.  And he seems very good at knowing how to coax smart play out of Randolph.  

I do think that this roster's brightest moments will come under a different coach.  Between Monta and Maggette's abilities to get to the hoop, the efficiency of Biedrins, the sharp-shooting of 'Buike and Morrow and the promise of Curry, this is actually *not* a team that needs the offensive genius of Nellie to figure out how to score.  This roster's big limitations are on the other side of the ball, and that's a side where Nellie just doesn't give you much.  In a weird way, I think Nellie's a poor fit for this roster.  But Nellie *is* a very good coach when focused, and he seems genuinely focused again this year.  I hope that keeps up... if you ask me, Focused Nellie is 8 to 10 games per season better than Tuned-Out Nellie.

5) Stephen Jackson!  Okay, okay... Stephen Jackson is not a Good Thing for the Warriors right now.  But we've heard a number of rumors about possible destinations for him, enough so that it seems likely that we'll be able to dump him for '11 expirings at worst, and possibly better.  I'm frankly shocked by that; I wouldn't have thought he'd bring back that much even *before* he demanded a trade.  But luckily for us, it would seem that a lot of GMs overrate him almost as much as Rowell and Nellie do.  If his unhappiness forces us to get from under his contract, he will have actually done us a huge favor.

I really like this team.  I want Jack gone yesterday, and I'll admit to being a little tired of The Corey Maggette Show, and I'm ready for Monta to start playing like Monta again, but overall, I think this is a fun, likeable bunch of guys with some real upside.  Playoff-bound this year?  Nah, but there's real promise here.  Not in the usual "we're the Warriors and we suck so we need to pretend there's promise" sort of way, but in a "dang, we actually have pretty interesting young players at every position and a decent cap situation if we can get Jack gone" sort of way.

Of course, if we lose to Memphis at home on Wednesday, OMGSEASONZOVERFIREROWELLLARRYELLISONetc.  But for now, that glass is looking mighty half-full to me.

Geoff Lepper mentioned this thought in his most recent 48minutes column, and it's indeed an interesting thought.  We want to get rid of Stephen Jackson, but he has negative value... we'll probably either need to take back crap in return or pair him with an appealing piece to get something decent.  Monta is still an appealing piece overall, especially if he starts the season decently, and he's also a guy who's an awkward fit for us, both in relation to Curry and possibly personality-wise.  If we do end up trading Jack this year (God willing), I wouldn't be at all surprised to see Monta shipped out along with him.

So let's say this was possible.  Let's say we could trade Jack and Monta for expiring deals... for now, let's say Jack and Monta for McGrady.  I don't think Rockets would agree to this trade, even if McGrady never plays again; they have a better version of Jack in Ariza, and a GM as savvy as Morey can do better with their coming cap space than Monta and Jack.  But let's say he goes on a drinking binge and calls Riley or Nellie and offers this deal.  Should we take it?

It's close, but to me, I think it'd be worthwhile.  The subtraction of Monta and Jack would leave us with a rotation that looked something like this:

PG: Stephen Curry (30), CJ Watson (18)

SG: Anthony Morrow (32), Kelenna Azubuike (16)

SF: Corey Maggette (32), Kelenna Azubuike (16)

PF: Anthony Randolph (32), Ronny Turiaf (16)

C: Andris Biedrins (32), Ronny Turiaf (16)

It wouldn't be quite that neat, of course... Mikki Moore would probably soak up ten 4/5 minutes a night when some of the bigs get in foul trouble, Wright will grab a few minutes if and when he's healthy, and of course more injuries would muddy the picture further.  But this would pretty much be it.

I like this lineup, for six reasons:

1) It features eight guys at their natural positions.

2) All eight guys are efficient scorers (assuming Curry rediscovers his stroke).

3) All four backcourt members can shoot the three (again, assuming Curry's return to form).

4) This is a better rebounding lineup than any that features Monta at the two and/or Jack at the three.  This is, in fact, a downright *good* rebounding lineup, if Curry's rebounding is anywhere near the level projected.

5) This is an efficient allocation of minutes, with everybody getting the playing time they deserve.  As things stand, useful players like CJ and Azubuike will rarely see action... in this scenario, we'd get value out of their presences.

6) This is, at least as far as we know, a 100% drama-free group.  It's basically Kawakami-proof.

There are, of course, some problems.  Our defense would suffer without Jack; our aggregate playmaking would be worse; we'd be punting on Monta's possible superstar potential.  But to me, none of these quite qualify as dealbreakers.  We had the league's worst defense last year *with* Jack, and our younger guys might develop more quickly if they're not told he'll be there to bail them out (which, again, he usually didn't last year).  Our assist totals would go down, but so would our turnovers; I don't think our overall playmaking would suffer much.  And if Monta can't play the point, as it seems like he can't, he probably *doesn't* have superstar potential... he's an undersized two who doesn't shoot threes and is iffy on defense.  He's as good as anyone with that description could possibly be, but that falls a bit south of "superstar".

Don't get me wrong... we'd be worse this season without Monta and Jack, particularly if the injury bug hits again.  But I doubt we'd be more than 5-6 games worse than if we had them.  And next summer, we'd have enough room to sign a max player, no matter how low the cap goes.  Who would that be?  I have no idea... I don't think we'd land any A-list guys.  But the flexibility would sure be nice.

So, overall, yeah.  I think I'd be okay with saying goodbye to Monta if it meant saying goodbye to Jack and getting cap space back.  But it's really all predicated on Curry panning out.  If he's as good as we all hope, Monta is thoroughly expendable.  If he's not -- if his shot doesn't return, if his playmaking doesn't live up to projections, if he can't defend credibly -- it's probably too risky.

It's yet one more reason why I'm excited to see Curry's regular-season debut tomorrow night.  If this kid's a star or anything close to it, things will get very, very interesting.

What do y'all think?  Is Monta + Jack better than or worse than 2010 cap space?