SB Nation User Blog: onlxn

How Much Would You Give For Amar'e?

onlxn — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 05:20:07 -0000

The thread jae started about a possible trade for Amar'e Stoudemire (trying to get used to the apostrophe) has been one of the best around here for awhile. It's covered a lot of ground and inspired a lot of useful, thoughtful discussion. It's also revealed one simple fact: collectively, we seem pretty conflicted about this trade. Amar'e offers big upside, but any trade would involve giving up a lot of talent and taking on a lot of financial risk... there are arguments in both directions. Some GSOMers think we need to grab this guy at all costs, some GSOMers think it's not worth messing with the young talent we have, and some GSOMers fall somewhere in between.

I have no hope of ending this debate, nor any desire to do... as I said, it's been a great discussion, and people on all sides are making excellent points. But I do want to try to get a rough sense of how many people are taking each position.

There are obviously thousands of possible offers we could make, a few of which have been suggested by people (including me), but most will never come close to happening, and trying to account for all of them would bog us down, at any rate. Let's stick to the various packages that the teams have actually discussed, according to reports: the base package of Biedrins/Wright/Belinelli, that package plus Curry, or that package plus Curry and Azubuike. (A Biedrins/Curry/Belinelli configuration was briefly rumored, but didn't seem to have legs, and it'd mess up the math anyway.)

So. How far would you go? Package A? Package B? Package C? No offer? Any offer? Where you at?

Poll

Which Amare package would be your final offer?

In Defense Of Drafting For Need

onlxn — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 05:57:26 -0000

This time of year, both of GSOM and on most other NBA blogs, you'll see the acronym "BPA" an awful lot. The credo of "best player available" is a fairly sacred one in fan circles, and understandably so. If your team is bad -- and the teams of most fans who obsess over the draft surely are -- you want your team to aggregate talent above all else. Don't worry about making pieces fit if the resulting puzzle is ugly. Don't pass up Michael Jordan just because you have Clyde Drexler; don't draft Patrick O'Bryant just because you want a center and he's the next one on the list. When drafting, it is said, your team should follow one and only one commandment: DRAFT THE BEST PLAYER AVAILABLE.

That's wrong.

It's not wrong in the simplest sense -- you *should* draft the best player available whenever possible. But the point is, *there is usually no obvious best player available*. This year, anyone with a pulse will tell you that the best player is Blake Griffin, and the Clippers will draft him accordingly. But that's the exception, not the rule. Memphis currently sits at two... the consensus pick there is probably Ricky Rubio, but if he's a majority choice, he's only barely one. The third pick is probably Hasheem Thabeet by a weak plurality, and after that it's pure chaos. In well over 90% of NBA draft slots, this year and in most years, nobody agrees on who the best player is.

That's not to say that a particular person doesn't have a strong opinion about the best available players. Many GSOM posters have ranked the top prospects in some order or another... NBA GMs obviously do the same. But it's unrealistically reductive to assume that every GM's top-ranked guy is and should be the right choice. GMs are surrounded by assistants, coaches, scouts, statisticians, owners, friends, mentors, influential and knowledgeable players... the best GMs listen to these people. Do the GMs ultimately reject the input of others and take the guy they had in their gut all along? Sure... they often do. But they sometimes don't, and they're sometimes right to stop listening to their gut. Determining who the best available player is is often next to impossible. And it's sort of obvious why.

Think about it. You're evaluating hundreds of players, some as young as 19, some (in the case of certain overseas players) as old as 25. Players from dozens of different countries, players of all different positions and shapes and sizes. You're judging them on play -- shooting, driving, rebounding, passing, defense -- but if you're a good GM, you're looking at a lot more than that. You're looking at their psychological makeup. You're looking at their health. You're looking at their chances to be a superstar... you're looking at their chances to be a bust. You're looking at their ability to handle the media, and yes, you're probably looking at their marketing potential, or lack thereof. The NBA is an infinitely complicated business. It's tempting to say that the right drafting strategy is determining the best available player and picking that person, but the situation is often not nearly so simple. Quite often, you're left with a bunch of guys who, when you balance all the various dimensions, seem about equally promising. If that's the case, how do you break the tie?

It's really sort of obvious: you draft the guy you *need*.

There are several relevant actors in the Kings' front office, and they may not -- by most accounts, do not -- agree on the best player who'll be available at four. But they can agree on one thing: *they need a point guard*. If all else is equal -- if you can draft a B-minus power forward or a B-minus point guard -- why *wouldn't* you draft the guy who'd actually address the issues on your basketball team?

Many Warriors fans, including many of the smartest Warriors fans, are allergic to this idea. When you have a crappy team like ours, the feeling is that you need to maximize the potential of every single draft pick. Don't let a stud pass you buy... don't let a dud seduce you because of fit. And at the extremes, this philosophy is absolutely right. If the available picks include Danny Granger and a bunch of guys who have significantly less potential than Danny Granger, forget about positions and take Danny Granger. If you really want a center, but the best one available is significantly worse than many available players at other positions, you shouldn't draft a center. I don't think anyone here would disagree.

But usually, it's not nearly that clear. Usually, you're looking at a bunch of guys with comparably similar potential. In that scenario, not only *can* you think of your team's needs, you *must*. Which is why the ideal drafting philosophy is *not* as simple as "BPA"... it's something more like this:

1) If one player is *clearly* the best available player, you must take that player.

2) If no such player exists, you must take the top-tier player who best fits your team's needs.

I don't always (or even often) agree with Chad Ford, but his concept of draft "tiers" is absolutely right. He has revealed his rankings of this year's top crop. They are by no means the gospel, and I actively disagree with a couple of his rankings, but let's regard them as wise for the sake of argument.

Tier 1

Blake Griffin

Tier 2

James Harden
Ricky Rubio
Hasheem Thabeet

Tier 3

Stephen Curry
DeMar DeRozan
Tyreke Evans
Jonny Flynn
Jordan Hill
Jrue Holiday

What does this mean? It means that if Blake Griffin is available, you *have* to take him, no matter your positional situation, because he's the only Tier 1 guy there is. (Even the Clippers understand that.) But if you have the #2 pick -- whether you're Memphis, Minnesota or whoever -- it's not quite so simple. There are three available players of fairly similar value, similar enough so that trying to determine the "best player available" is essentially impossible. In that case, take the Tier 2 guy who fits you best. For the Grizzles, it's probably Thabeet... for the Wolves, it's probably Rubio. Either pick would be completely defensible, even if you thought a guy who fit you worse might have *mildly* higher potential.

The Warriors? Well, as always, we're a weird case. It's not actually that clear what our "need" position even is. *But it is totally appropriate that we would take that into consideration.* If there is no available guy who jumps out, you *have* to take the shape of your roster and franchise into account. There is no reward at year's end for the team that accrued the most players with agreed-upon "potential" scores... there is only reward for the teams that won the most basketball games. Fit shouldn't trump potential, especially on bad teams... but fit is far easier to measure than potential. When the potential of two players seems for all the world to be similar, you should pick the one you think you *need* more. That's just logic.

I don't post this to suggest we should be leaning hard towards one player or away from another... I don't follow the college game at all closely enough, or understand the difference between levels well enough, to have an informed opinion about any of these guys. But I do think our collective conversation could use a little kick in the pants. "BPA" is not a very illuminating credo by itself. Need is of secondary but still-critical importance, and any argument that omits that misses the boat.

Richard Jefferson To Spurs

onlxn — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 17:29:36 -0000

Richard Jefferson To Spurs

Pure salary dump by Milwaukee. The main upshot for us is that Ramon Sessions is now much less likely to leave the Bucks... this also strengthens a Western Conference opponent, though I think most of us expected the Spurs to remain playoff-calibre anyway.

The Road To Respectability

onlxn — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 07:45:41 -0000

(This got really long. I'm sorry for what I've caused.)

Tonight's win -- against a strong Hornets team, despite the absence of our top four players -- was fantastic. It was one of our most impressive, most satisfying and most encouraging games of the season. But more than anything, it got me thinking about this team's most critical flaw.

We lost 34 games last year... this season, we'll probably lose, say, 52. Eighteen games is an ocean's worth of difference, and if we want to make the playoffs again anytime soon, we're going to need to make up most of that. Dramatic improvements aren't easy in the NBA; you usually need a star to show up, and Blake Griffin and Chris Bosh dreams notwithstanding, there's no particular reason to think one will.

So how do we get better? What's the most important thing for this team to focus on going forward?

Health is the easiest answer. A full season of Monta, and fewer nicks and scrapes in general, and we'll certainly improve. But health will be there or it won't... that's nothing that the coaching staff or players can really control.

Rebounding? Rebounding's an issue for us, and an area in which we can improve a bit next season simply by playing two bigs at all times (preferably Biedrins and Randolph more often than not). But let's not forget, we won 48 games last season despite getting significantly outrebounded by our opponents. We have been, and can be, a successful team without being a rebounding force.

Defense? Well, our defense definitely stinks, and ideally we'd improve it. But a team with this roster and this coach is never going to be all that good at defense. The best we can do is to slow the bleeding there a bit. Defense won't be our salvation.

A true point guard? Would be nice, I guess, but I just don't see a pressing need. Our offense has been decent, and it's been quite strong whenever Monta's played. He may not be a true point, but we seem to score just fine whenever we slot him there. I don't see a pure point guard being vital to our improvement.

So what is it? If it's not health or rebounding or defense or a new point guard, what is the key to improving?

The key is simple. To travel down the road to respectability, we need to focus on, well... the road.

Tonight's win clinched a winning record for us at the Oracle on the year. We'll finish no more than six games worse than last season at home, and we might cut that deficit to three or four games. And our 21-17 record is no fluke, either... we're outscoring opponents by 2.6 points per game at home, a better point differential than either the Hornets or Suns have on the year overall. At home, we're an above-average NBA team.

But on the road, we're 6-32, and with a -9.9 PPG differential, if anything, we're a little crappier than that record suggests. No NBA team's had an overall point differential that bad since the '99-'00 Clippers, and that team was no picnic. I mean, we are *disgustingly* bad on the road. We won 21 games on the road last season, and the most we can possibly win this year is nine. There is currently a *fifteen-game* disparity between our home record and our road record.

Now, a disparity between your home record and your road record is natural. Minnesota has identical home and road records this season... every other team is better at home than on the road, and in several cases the gaps are big. The Hawks have as big a gap between their home and road records as us, and Utah's gap is a bit *bigger* than ours... they're 32-7 in SLC and a mere 14-23 on the road. Teams tend to struggle more away from home.

Still, there's nobody quite like us. At home, we play like a six seed... on the road, we play like one of the worst teams in league history. So the obvious questions are 1) why, and 2) what can be done about it?

The first answer people might throw out there is youth -- the idea that our guys are just too inexperienced to pull out wins in front of unfriendly crowds. I imagine this is a factor, but I don't think it's an overwhelmingly large one. Portland is even younger than we are (the absent LaFrentz skews their numbers), and they're a fairly solid 17-20 at home. Memphis and OKC, two young and thoroughly crappy teams, edge us by a game on the road. Young teams do struggle on the road, but they don't usually struggle like *us*. I don't think youth is the whole answer.

Fatigue probably plays a part. Teams play many more back-to-backs on the road than at home, and the second half of back-to-backs are very hard games for teams. I'd think that'd be doubly true for a team that plays at the fastest pace in the league and shoots lots of jumpers. But in fact, we're 5-9 in second halves of back-to-backs... 3-0 at home, 2-9 on the road. 2-9 is pretty bad, but we're 4-23 in all of our other road games, which is only marginally worse. So fatigue isn't really the answer either.

I'd expected the biggest factor to be defense. Anecdotally, my impression is that the enthusiasm of the Oracle crowd spurs this team into more of a defensive effort than they usually give on the road. But the numbers don't bear that out at all. Our opponents score 112.9 points per game in Oracle and 112.6 points per everywhere else, meaning we actually give up *fewer* points on the road. I think our home defense has been a tiny bit better than our road defense, as our opponents score those 112.6 non-Oracle points more efficiently, with fewer shot attempts and turnovers. Still, the difference is miniscule. Our defensive effort on the road is not the problem.

It's our *offense* that's killing us on the road. We take the same number of shots both at home and on the road, but we miss 3.5 more of them on the road, we take 5.5 fewer free throws on the road, we record 3.3 fewer assists on the road, and we turn the ball over an extra 1.5 times on the road, to boot. The result? We score 115.5 points per in Oracle and 102.7 per on the road, for a mind-boggling differential of 12.8.

This is... pretty weird. Most teams aren't like this. For most teams, their worse performance on the road is due to worse defense, with slightly worse offense on top of it. For us, it's all due to a catastrophic drop in our offense. You can explain some of this with context -- our schedule has been home-heavy during our most prolific periods, when Jack was hot and Monta was around -- but not all of it. We just seem to forget how to score on the road. 'Buike, Biedrins, Monta, Randolph and Wright all shoot significantly better in Oracle than elsewhere... Jack only shoots a little better in Oracle, but is much more productive generally there. And Maggette's disparity is absurd: he shoots 54% from the field in Oracle, but only 38% elsewhere.

I'm not exactly sure how a team goes about addressing this, but at the risk of straying too far off the stats reservation, it seems to me that this team could use a little more confidence when it hits the road. I'm not talking about the swagger that a guy like Jack puts forth -- I'm talking about confidence in your offensive game plan and confidence in your teammates. Even in this disaster of a season, the young, flawed Warriors have responded and played well whenever crowds have cheered them on... they've played smart, enthusiastic team basketball in Oakland. On the road, they've settled for isolation and gunning far more often, and it's hurt them horribly.

The key guy is Nellie. Monta can try to lead the offense, Jack can try, guys like Marco and CJ can try in their brief appearances, but really it's on Nellie to make these guys play smart offense. It's his bread and butter, it's something this team can do fairly well when directed properly, and it's not like Nellie's busy teaching guys about defense.

To make the playoffs next year, we'll need to be able to squeeze fifteen wins out of road games. To do that, we'll need to play significantly smarter offense away from home. And that will only happen if Nellie demands it. He's gotten nice offensive play out of this team in Oakland, but he needs to keep their focus sharp elsewhere. Without that, the Dark Ages 2.0 will continue.

Anthony Morrow Is Underrated

onlxn — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 18:55:00 -0000

Sounds crazy, I know. Every road game we play, our opponents' announcers mention Morrow's 37-point game, and meanwhile he's scoring like nine points on middling shooting. It seems like Morrow was a flash in the pan and he'll never amount to anything.

I'm not entirely convinced. Don't get me wrong -- I'm not saying the guy's going to be a star. But he plays effective basketball. Even since he went cold, he's helped us. And he's one of the better rookies in the league.

Let's look at his December numbers. These numbers don't include his 37-point and 25-point games... these are all numbers that have come since Morrow, seemingly, turned back into a pumpkin. How has Morrow done in December? Let's look at his numbers prorated to 36 minutes per game. (He's played over 20 minutes a game this month, so this isn't some sort of POB/Kosta-style imaginary inflation.)

Anthony Morrow, December, RATE/36

15.8 points, .438 FG%, .333 3P%, .875 FT%, 5.6 REB, 2.1 AST, 0.7 TO, 1.6 ST

His shooting isn't great -- remember, we're only looking at his colder month -- but it's far from disastrous. It's substantially better than Jack and Crawford's, and the percentages are better than Maggette's, though Maggette's ability to get to the line closes the gap between them. Even in December, Morrow's been an okayish scorer.

But the scoring's not what I want to look at. Look at Morrow's other numbers. They're *good*.

5.6 rebounds is downright elite for a shooting guard. Morrow's played the three some as well, so "elite" would be overstating it, but he's a good rebounder.

2.1 assists? Nothing special. But 0.7 turnovers per game, and a 3:1 assist/turnover ratio? Those numbers are pretty damn special. Morrow almost never makes a mistake out there. He's not a talented passer, but he makes such good decisions that his passing is an asset anyway.

Finally, Morrow has averaged 1.6 steals per 36 minutes in December. On the year, only Watson's stolen at a rate that high. Morrow's savvy shows up on defense, as well. (To round out his stats, he only has one block on the season. That ain't good. On the other hand, that's one more than Marco.)

A final point about Morrow that the stats don't quite relate: he fouls smartly. When Morrow gets whistled, more often than not, it's a spot where a foul makes sense. Whether it's a layup, a breakaway or a mismatch in the spot, Morrow has a good sense of when to foul an opponent.

Morrow's Roland Rating is still the highest, by far, of any Warrior. Is that number skewed by his 37-point/25-point back-to-back? Sure. But he's played in 21 games at this point, and those two games represent less than 20% of his minutes on the season, so it's not like those two games alone could make a bad player look good. The vast majority of his minutes have come during this brutal 3-15 slide... Morrow's Roland Rating has stayed high.

I'm starting to think Anthony Morrow is a pretty good player. He's not going to shoot 60% from three-point land his whole career, but even when he's not shooting great, he helps you. He doesn't put you in a hole by trying to shoot his way out of slumps. He's above-average on the boards... he passes decently. He'll take the ball away from your opponents a good bit, and he'll almost never give it back to them. He's probably not a good defender overall, but he's not a terrible one... after Jack, I think he might be the best non-big defender we have. This is a guy who, even cold, helps you more than he hurts you. And if he can keep his three-point shooting in the 38-40% range (he's still at .451 on the season, tenth in the league, so it's not an outrageous assumption), he's a real asset.

Bright spots are few and far between right now. But Anthony Morrow is one. We have a rookie who's already a pretty decent NBA player. And that's something to be excited about.

Five Reasons Why We Shouldn't Tank

onlxn — Sun, 30 Nov 2008 22:55:48 -0000

With this horrible stretch of losses, some people have started saying we should punt on the season and just try to position ourselves for a high pick in next year's draft. It's an understandable impulse, but here are five reasons why we shouldn't do it.

1) Tanking Is Gross

As bad as we've generally been over the last fifteen years, we've almost never explicitly tanked... there's almost always some effort behind bad Warriors teams, no matter how misguided. Actual, honest-to-God tanking, like the Heat did last year and the Celts did the year before, is disgusting and dispiriting. I have friends who are Celtics fans who are still ashamed of '06-'07. We wouldn't respect ourselves in the morning.

2) Tanking Usually Doesn't Work Anyway

Very few teams become playoff contenders just because they land a top-five pick. For every Lebron and Dwight Howard, there are a whole bunch of Adam Morrisons and Shaun Livingstons and Drew Goodens and, dare we remember, Mike Dunleavys. Hell, J-Rich was the #5 pick, and as much as we all loved him, he never really got us anywhere.

3) It's A Weak Draft Class, With Lots Of Point Guards

Both these things are relevant. People are projecting next year's crop of rookies to be pretty middling... grabbing the #5 pick in this draft wouldn't mean nearly as much as it would in a strong year. Additionally, there'll be no shortage of point guards in the first round, most of whom show comparable potential. We may end up wanting a point guard for sure, but why strain for the third-best one when the fifth-best one will be about as good?

4) This Franchise Can't Stand Another Nightmare Year

Look at how crazed we've all gotten after a six-game losing streak early in the year. Those twelve years in the wilderness had their effects on this fanbase... Warriors fans are SCARRED. Yes, Oracle attendance generally remained high during the dark days, but I don't think it could survive another gut-wrenching fall down to the very bottom of the league. The difference between 26-56 and 36-46 might not mean much to some franchises, but it means a lot to this one. The franchise needs to convince the fans that this team is, if not good, at least still worth taking seriously.

5) We're Not Capable Of Tanking

I know this sounds odd. I'm not saying we're so good that we couldn't possibly manage to lose... that's ridiculous. As we know all too well, this team can lose. This team seems pretty damn good at it.

But think about what tanking generally entails. The way teams tank is to bench their star veterans for specious reasons and to give a lot of playing time to young, unproven guys. If we did that, we'd actually get better.

If Jackson, Maggette and Crawford all sat out the rest of the season with mysterious, undisclosed injuries, we'd improve. I'm not saying those guys are horrible (though they're all flawed and have all played poorly thus far)... I'm saying that minutes that don't go to Jackson, Maggette and Crawford will go to Wright, Watson, Turiaf, Randolph and Morrow. Nellie would be forced to play some bigger lineups, and in doing so, would accidentally start winning some games.

I'm not saying our young guys are world-beaters. Randolph's a spaz. Morrow may have been a flash in the pan. Marco's not very good. Watson probably isn't as good as he's been lately. But Wright *is* good, and so is Turiaf (who's only 25 himself), and we've played better with guys like Randolph and Morrow and Watson on the floor. Lineups composed of Monta, Biedrins and those guys would win some games.

Hell, think about Richard Hendrix. He's a second-round pick who's currently in the D-League... if you wanted to tank, he's the EXACT kind of player you'd turn to. Well, does anybody here think we'd be worse if we started playing Richard Hendrix? I sure as hell don't. He might not be any good, but he's a type of player we could use, so we certainly wouldn't suffer for his presence. This team is simply not designed to lose 60 games.

We will probably go something like 32-50, and get the ninth pick in the draft, and it'll sorta suck. But it's better than being terrible and hoping for a rookie savior. Tanking's gross, it usually doesn't work, it especially wouldn't work this year, it's not something this franchise can risk, and I don't think we could even do it if we tried.

Peripheral Stats From Kawakami

onlxn — Sun, 30 Nov 2008 19:35:20 -0000

Kawakami: Stephen Jackson is the Warriors’ best player, but his peripheral stats stink

I think Kawakami can be kind of a goofball sometimes, but this is worth reading. It basically underlines a lot of the issues many of us have been complaining about.

- Jack's plus-minus stats are terrible. We shoot better and opponents shoot worse when he's *off* the floor. Some of that is due to the fact the Jack's not on the floor for garbage time; nevertheless, it's worth noting that we consistently win in garbage time, because we play a regular-sized lineup. Kawakami still seems to think that Jack's our best player, even better than Monta, which takes some real mental gymnastics. Jack has been hurting us.

- Maggette's defensive numbers are as bad as you'd think: teams shoot significantly better against us when he's on the floor. Nevertheless, his plus-minus stats are much better than Jack's, because Maggette has been fairly efficient on offense, even with his cold shooting.

- Crawford is scary bad so far on defense, FAR worse than Maggette (which accords with my sense of this past week's games). We give up points at a 135-per-game pace when Crawford plays. Kawakami: "It’s a tiny sample size, but Jamal Crawford might be the worst defensive player the Warriors have ever had, which is saying something." Oy.

- Azubuike's plus-minus is surprisingly bad. I suspect that's partly due to the fact that Azubuike is usually featured in the smallest lineups we use. Still, troubling.

- We are dramatically better when Wright is on the floor (both offensively and defensively), when Watson is on the floor, and when Turiaf is on the floor. None of this should be a surprise to anyone who's been watching the games.

The takeaways: Nellie is every bit the fool we think is for keeping Wright and Turiaf on the pine. What Jack is doing is really, really not working. Crawford may be an even worse acquisition than some of us feared. And C.J. Watson is turning into a quality backup, making the Crawford trade completely pointless.

Adjustments could address almost all of these problems: you clamp down on Jack, make Wright a starter, give Turiaf 25 minutes a night, make Crawford a sixth man (if not seventh), and we'll play better. Will Nellie make any of those adjustments? I'm not holding my breath.

Who Are Our Best Players?

onlxn — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 03:39:56 -0000

With a roster in flux like ours, it's a worthwhile question... after all, you'd ideally give your best players the most minutes. I'd rank our best players, from best to worst, like this:

1. Andris Biedrins

Biedrins is pretty clearly our stud -- he's providing elite performance at the most important position, and he's the main reason that Nellieball has been at all effective in the last two-plus years. This dude should be playing as much as his stamina and foul situations allow. Happily, Nellie seems to have finally realized that.

2. Monta Ellis

We haven't seen him yet, obviously, and he could be a different player when he comes back... maybe his injury has slowed him down, maybe he's learned a new trick or two, as he has in previous offseasons. Nevertheless, I think this will end up being the right slot for him: less important than Biedrins, more skilled than everyone else. Like Biedrins, he should play as much as his conditioning will allow.

3. Corey Maggette

He hasn't been great so far, but I believe in Corey Maggette. He's clearly a smart, effective player... when his shot starts falling consistently, he'll be a real asset. He should play starter's minutes, but probably *not* at power forward.

4. Brandan Wright

This is where this may start to get controversial, but I'm confident that Wright deserves to be this high... if anything, I could see an argument for slotting him above Maggette.

Brandan Wright has been effective just about every time Nellie has called his number over the last two years. He scores efficiently, he blocks shots, he hustles, and he doesn't make many mistakes... we do markedly better when he's on the floor. This is no longer a fluke. We have a very good young power forward, and somehow he's *eighth* on the team in minutes.

Brandan Wright should be starting for us. I don't know that he's tough enough to play 30-35 minutes a night for a full NBA season... in fact, I suspect that he's not. But we should put him out there and let his performance tell us when he's had enough. He's good enough to deserve that opportunity.

5. Stephen Jackson

I'm not putting Jack this low to hate on him. I like Jack a lot. He's important to this team, and he's taken on an unfairly heavy load so far this year. Having said that, he isn't the best player on our team or anything close to it. He's inefficient on offense, especially so this year, and a dreadful rebounder; he's a good passer, but not nearly the playmaker that he thinks he is. He's a defensive asset, particularly because he can defend so many types of players, but I think his defense has been a little off so far this season. Jack helps us on a lot of plays, but he kills us on a bunch too, far more than the four guys I've listed above him.

I think Jack should probably start for us, especially since Monta may need help running the offense. However, Jack should *never* be our first option offensively, and he should *not* lead the team in minutes, much less the league. 30 minutes a night of a Jack that focuses on shutdown defense and taking open threes is the best version. Iron-Man Gunning Jack should be in our rearview mirror as soon as possible.

6. Jamal Crawford

While I didn't love the trade that brought him here, Jamal Crawford looks to be a strong sixth man for us: scoring, playmaking and spunk is not a bad combo. He's like Stephen Jackson without the defense: an All-Star that ain't, but it makes for a dandy third guard. 25-30 minutes a night would suffice, as I really don't like the idea of him and Jack on the floor together for long stretches.

7. Kelenna Azubuike

Buike continues to be solid, and if he's your second guy off the bench, that speaks well for your depth. Ideally Nellie finds a way to get him around 25 minutes a game.

8. Ronny Turiaf

Perfect for his role. He could maybe play a few more minutes than he does, but he fouls too frequently to ever be anything resembling a starter.

9. Anthony Morrow

Hard to know what this guy is. He could still be good -- could potentially rise on this list. I don't think he merits more minutes than Crawford or Azubuike as things stand.

10. C.J. Watson

A fine reserve guard. I think CJ gets a bad rap, and in fact I think there's an argument that he should be ahead of Morrow on the depth chart. Having said that, he shouldn't be playing over most of our guards. I'd be down to see him 15 minutes a night, whenever our ball-handling gets dicey.

11. Anthony Randolph

This guy is fun to watch, and like everyone here, I'm intrigued by his potential. Let's also keep in mind -- he currently sucks. Rebounds well, blocks some shots, has a smooth handle, but he plays like a chicken with its head cut off, and there's no particular reason why we should want that. Brandan Wright is currently a better player in every way that matters; Randolph can probably lead a fast break more smoothly than Wright, but does anybody really want to watch Randolph leading fast breaks right now?

Randolph is a fine play in garbage time, or, maybe occasionally, as a brief change of pace. He should not be a part of our regular rotation. There's a good argument, in fact, for sending him down to the D-League. I think being around Nellie might be more important than the in-game experience he'd get down there, but the point is, Randolph playing significant NBA minutes isn't great for him or us. We don't want him learning bad habits, and we don't want to suck. It's time Nellie sat on this guy a little bit.

12. Marco Belinelli

Might currently be a bit better than Randolph, but has less potential and is buried deeper, considering the composition of the team. He's shown no real indication that he deserves more than garbage time.

------

Monta, Jack, Maggette, Wright and Biedrins is a credible starting lineup, and Crawford/Azuibuike/Turiaf is a fine trio off the bench. This team is not hurting for talent. Nellie just needs to adjust to the realities on the ground. Biedrins and Wright should be playing alongside one another, no matter how much that crimps Nellie's usual style, no matter how many wacky guards they displace. Stephen Jackson is a complementary player, and he should get minutes and responsibilities that reflect that.

I still like this team. But Nellie needs to steer it better. Here's hoping tonight's game made him more aware of that.

That's my take on our roster, from best to worst. What do other folks think?

Thanks, Al

onlxn — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 19:57:21 -0000

Al certainly didn't go out with a bang, but I enjoyed his presence the last year or two. He was really fun to watch when he was on, he had some big performances for us, and most of all, he was neither Mike Dunleavy nor Troy Murphy. Really likeable guy. He had a falling out with Nellie, but that's certainly not the first time that's happened with Nellie... I don't think it means Al was unprofessional or a bad Warrior.

My biggest memory of Al is actually of his defense: of the killer job he did against Yao last year (not unlike Maggette's schooling of Aldridge the other day). Al was, if not a great player, an interesting, versatile player, and he lit up the Oracle on a good number of nights. I will remember him fondly.

Any other fond memories of Al can go here (or elswhere, if a mod's going to start a thread like this).

Is This A Starting Backcourt?

onlxn — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 18:17:13 -0000

This is admittedly jumping the gun, but jumping the gun is all we can do right now. And I'm reacting specifically to what Pree has been saying -- that the team's looking to move Al for PG/C help, but not necessarily expecting to get a starter-quality player out of that. It seems like our starting backcourt may already be in place.

There's an increasing sense that the team is planning on moving forward with Monta at the point, at least for this season. I think that's frankly a great call. Monta's a very good, very promising young player... but the only way he becomes a GREAT player in this league is if he can hang as a point guard. He's just too small to defend at the 2, and while he obviously scores pretty decently against the shooting guards of other teams, with his speed and elevation on his jumpers, I think he's an even tougher matchup for opposing points. In a year that's unlikely to produce a playoff spot, this is absolutely a worthwhile experiment.

But two questions immediately arise: 1) how can Monta actually distribute enough for the team to function, and 2) who's our starting shooting guard?

I think we have a surprisingly good answer to both question, and the answer's the same for both: Stephen Jackson.

Jack averaged 4.1 assists last year, which is actually more than Monta. He spent a lot time covering 2s, and did it well. As a semi-credible post-up option, he's arguably a tougher matchup for opposing defenses as a 2 than a 3. He's an absolutely dreadful rebounder for his size... we'd cover that up more easily if we kept him in the backcourt. His good citizenship this past season aside, I don't think many teams would be excited about trading for him... he's worth more to us than to anyone else.

It looks like our starting backcourt may be Monta Ellis and Stephen Jackson. And maybe I'm crazy, but that's looking better and better to me.

By splitting playmaking duties, I think they'd be able to run the offense. There's certainly no shortage of scoring ability there, and Monta's defensive deficiencies would be well-addressed by this. The biggest downside is the risk of faster 2s just running by Jack to the hoop, but in Biedrins, Wright and now Turiaf, we have some pretty good bail-out defense down low. I honestly think Jack might be more valuable as an oversized 2 than as the 3 he was last year.

The team's still not aligned properly... there are frontcourt questions, the usual defense & rebounding questions, and depth questions. Maybe I'm totally off-base here and we'll trade for a PG after all, and this alignment will never happen.

But there's a chance that Monta and Jackson will form our starting backcourt this fall. And for this one, transitional season, I'd be pretty interested in seeing that happen.