SB Nation User Blog: trk

Good Article About Cunningham

trk — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 22:47:19 -0000

Good Article About Cunningham

How Awesome is Ty Lawson?

trk — Fri, 22 May 2009 06:43:02 -0000

Ty Lawson is coming of a very impressive college season in which he lead his team to an NCAA championship and won the Bob Cousy award (which goes to the best college PG in the country). How amazing was Lawson this year?

Out of all the college players in Draftexpress’s database (dating back to 2001/2002), Ty Lawson this year was the highest in both A/TO ratio and pure point rating. The amazing part is that Ty Lawson accomplished this feat with a game that is a mixture of scoring and passing rather than being the type of PG that racks up a ton a assists because they never shoot themselves. Speaking of scoring, Lawson’s 1.15 points/play and 1.30 points/possession are both the best of any college PG in the nation this year. In other words, Lawson was both the most efficient passer and the most efficient scorer out of all of the college PGs this year.

Lawson has also done pretty well in the complete statistical metrics (like PER, EFF, Win Score). In terms of PER (which puts a heavy emphasis on volume scoring), Lawson was only the 4th best PG nation this year, but the 3 players ahead of him (Stephen Curry, Lester Hudson, and Been Woodside) all played against much weaker competition than Lawson. In terms of WS/40 (I don’t like to use WS/40 as an evaluation for NBA players but is decent for evaluating college players since it puts a low value on volume scoring which is one of the things that often does not translate well to the NBA anyway) Lawson is the best PG this year and 2nd best in the database (behind Lester Hudson’s 2007-2008 season, which was against much weaker competition). In EFF/40, Lawson is the 5th best player in the DXdatabase (behind Stephen Curry, Lester Hudson, Dwayne Wade, and Rodney Stuckey, all of whom faced weaker competition than Lawson. The next player on that list after Lawson would be Brandon Roy).

Lawson isn’t just about the numbers though. Lawson is also a good athlete who is very quick and has a versatile and well-rounded game. I was very impressed by Lawson’s passing ability. Lawson routinely makes spectacular passes (full-court outlet passes, alley-oops, post entry passes through traffic), yet somehow manages to do all that while maintaining a very low turnover rate. I was also impressed with Lawson’s defense. His lack of height is a disadvantage, but Lawson is quick and strong, plus he has a good sense of when he needs to rotate and he forces a lot of turnovers by choosing the right time to double team opponents.

Perhaps the best aspect of Lawson’s game is that he does not have any major weaknesses (other than his height). A year ago Lawson did have some significant weaknesses, the biggest of those weaknesses being lack of a consistent 3-point shot, poor shooting when pulling up off the dribble, and a perception that he was only good in a run-and gun system and would struggle in the half court. This year, Lawson hit 47.2% of the 3-point shots he took, many of which were from beyond NBA range. Draftexpress also had this to say about Lawson’s scoring efficiency this year:

Ty Lawson looks as good as anyone from this perspective, regardless of position.

As we put this data together, we weren’t surprised that Ty Lawson excelled from a situational perspective, as he did play for the most potent offense in all of college basketball, but we didn’t expect him to look this good. He ranks first in a number of key categories, including overall FG% (52%), Points Per Possession [PPP](1.13), pull up jump shot FG% (47%), and %shots he was fouled on (16.1%). Though his teammates did a lot of scoring as well, Lawson functioned seamlessly as a complementary scorer. Looking past his efficiency as a shooter off the dribble, he was second in catch and shoot field goal percentage at 48%. From a purely statistical sense, no player on this list scored more efficiently than Lawson.

We thought that UNC’s transition offense might have given Lawson a decided advantage over some of his counterparts in terms of efficiency, but that wasn’t entirely true. He did get 10% more offense in transition than any of the other players we looked at (an outrageous 38.6%), but his transition PPP of 1.2 is the same as his PPP in spot up situations and not as far above the average as his PPP in pick and roll situations (1.19 PPP, +.29) or on isolations (1 PPP, +.16). Lawson was an incredibly prolific transition player (which is quite an advantage in itself today’s NBA), but he was comparatively better in other areas as well. When you consider that he only turned the ball over on 13.8% of his half court possessions (5th best) and can drive left and right equally well, it seems like Lawson could be an excellent offensive fit on virtually any team, regardless of tempo.

So Lawson is not just good at running the break, he is also the most efficient scorer of any of the PGs in the draft in half court situations and he is the best at hitting pull-up jumpers. Basically, the 3 biggest “weaknesses” that Lawson had last year are all significant strengths for him this year.

If Lawson is so great why isn’t he projected to go higher in the draft? The only real answer that I can think of is because he is short, which really isn‘t that good of a reason when you consider that the consensus best PG in the NBA (Chris Paul) actually has a slightly shorter standing reach than Lawson does. Lawson looks like he could be a steal if falls to the middle of the first round as most mock drafts project him to.

Poll

Should the Blazers try to move up in the draft to get Ty Lawson?

Yes

51 votes

No

24 votes

Only if they can move up really cheaply

41 votes

116 votes | Poll has closed

Statistical +/-

trk — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 05:31:24 -0000

Statistical +/- is a metric originally created by Dr. Dan Rosenbaum in 2004 that is intended to predict a player's adjusted +/- ratings based on box score data. He used a regression of box score stats vs. adjusted +/- to determine the coefficients of different variables in the formula. Neil Paine at Basketball-Reference.com has tweaked and updated the statistical +/- formulas by including data for the last couple years, as well as adding new variables for a player's height and age. Statistical +/- is not perfect, and I am not completely convinced that Rosenbaum & Paine selected the correct variables to use in the regression (the "versatility index" especially seems like it could be improved upon), but it is still an intriguing approach to the problem of creating a way to evaluate players and I believe that it is superior to the more commonly used metrics like PER and Win Score.   Although it is called statistical +/-, this metric is box score based and does not actually use any +/- data (although there is a team adjustment to make sure that a weighted sum of a team's players' statistical +/- will equal the team's +/-).

How do the Blazers do in Paine's new statistical +/- ratings?

Roy            +6.13

Rudy          +2.57

Oden         +1.67

Blake         +1.55

Aldridge    +1.32

Batum       +0.99

Przybilla    +0.48

Sergio       -0.49

Outlaw      -0.70

Frye           -4.44

Bayless    -5.05

Roy is 9th in the NBA (behind LeBron, CP3, Wade, Ginobili, Howard, Kobe, Duncan, and Kidd). He is a stud, and pretty much all metrics agree on that at this point.

Rudy did better than I would have expected, since although adjusted +/- loves him most box score based metrics don't.   Statistical +/- likes 3-point shooters. Rudy is the #1 rookie in the NBA (if you don't count people like Hamed Haddadi who have barely played any minutes).

Oden has had a pretty good rookie season when he has been able to stay on the court.

Blake has had a good season, his statistical +/- rating is close to being the same as his adjusted +/- rating.

Aldridge is lower that I would have expected, but is still considered an above average player.

Batum does pretty well in statistical +/-, which is a bit surprising. He also does very well in adjusted +/-, but most people looking at his box score stats would not think he is that good and the formula shouldn't have any way of figuring out that he is a lock-down defender.

Przybilla helps the team a little more on defense than he hurts them on offense.

Sergio is rated as a slightly below average player, but that is still much better than how he is rated by adjusted +/-.

Outlaw normally does fairly well in box score-based metrics, but statistical +/- doesn't like him very much. Adjusted +/- doesn't like him much either.

Frye and Bayless have obviously both had terrible years this season.

I was actually a bit surprised by how closely the statistical +/- ratings matched the adjusted +/- ratings for a lot of players. Considering that the two metrics use completely different types of data to rate players, it would not be surprising to see a bunch of major disagreements between the two metrics. The fact that the correlation is as strong as it is suggests that statistical +/- is doing a good job of what it is intended to do.

What adjustments would you make?

trk — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 02:13:14 -0000

In the first game with the Rockets, the Blazers were badly outplayed on both ends of the court. The offense was stagnant and did not generate many high-percentage shots, while the defense had no answer for Yao or Brooks. If the Blazers want to have a good chance of winning this series, they are going to have to make some changes in their game plan. If you were the coach of the Blazers, what would you have them do differently?

Personally, I am more worried about the offense than I am about the defense. It seemed like the Rockets were making a bunch of jump shots that they aren't going to be able to make every time, so even if the Blazers don't make any big adjustments the Rockets probably won't shoot as well next game. The problems on offense, however, don't look like they will be solved by regression toward the mean, since the Blazers really weren't able to create many good shots.

To improve offensive efficiency, I would start Rudy and Oden instead of Batum and Przybilla. With a Blake/Rudy/Roy/Aldridge/Oden lineup, the Blazers will have players who can score at every position. Hopefully Aldridge and/or Oden will be able to get going in the post, and if the Rockets try to double team them there are enough skilled passers and shooters in this lineup to make them pay.

Defensively, I would have Rudy guard Brooks (he has better length and quickness than Blake, which should help him stay in front to Brooks) while Blake guards Battier. Battier vs Blake would be a mismatch, but Battier does not score much and most of the scoring he does is off of 3-point shots, so I don't thing he would be able to exploit the mismatch much. Roy would have to guard Artest, and he should be able to do a pretty good job against Artest if he does not have to save his energy for carrying the load on offense. Aldridge would be matched up against Scola, and I still think he is capable of winning this match up.

Yao Ming is the toughest problem for the Blazers to solve on defense. Having Joel guard him straight up was a miserable failure. Fronting him is an option, but it would hurt defensive rebounding and the player best suited for fronting him (Aldridge) is also the one best suited for stopping Scola. I think the best option would be to have Oden guard him, but instead of guarding him 1-on-1 we need to double team him whenever he gets the ball in the post. This will leave some of the other Rockets open, but that is better than letting Yao score and hopefully the double team will force some turnovers.

So what do you think? What adjustments would you have the Blazers make to try and turn the tables on the Rockets?

The reason why we almost lost

trk — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 07:24:03 -0000

When we were using a back court with Sergio and Rudy early in the 4th quarter and running plays for Rudy our offense was very effective. Rudy would run through several picks to get open, and Sergio would feed him the ball. Not only did this seem to be working and putting points on the board fairly efficiently, Rudy was also drawing fouls and seemed to be tiring out the Rocket’s defenders who had to chase him. Unfortunately, we stopped using these plays when Roy came in for Sergio. Instead, we ran an iso for Roy, then another iso for Roy, and then yet another iso for Roy. Now Roy had been playing poorly all game, and was being guarded by Ron Artest who he always plays poorly against, so it shouldn’t come as a surprise that most of those iso plays resulted in missed shots or turnovers. This allowed the Rockets to catch up and nearly ended up costing us the game.

I still think that a backcourt with Roy and Rudy has the potential to be very effective, but we need to be smarter and execute better than we have been doing. Running an iso for Roy isn't always the best option, especially when he is being guarded by one of the league’s premier defenders and has a teammate who has a wide variety of potent offensive skills like Rudy Fernandez. We really need to get Roy and Rudy some practice time playing together and have them develop some 2-man plays that utilize both of their talents. Until we do that, we are severely handicapping our own offense and we won't be able to win consistently against good teams.

Von Wafer makes Rocket's regular season roster

trk — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 03:11:10 -0000

Von Wafer makes Rocket's regular season roster

Ex-blazer Von Wafer had some nice games for the Rockets during preseason and managed to make their final 14-man roster(they want to leave one spot open).

Nature vs. Nurture

trk — Sun, 18 May 2008 19:58:02 -0000

Last year the Blazers managed to win 41 games in the Western Conference despite having the 3rd youngest team in NBA history. This should be considered a very impressive achievement, so it is reasonable to think that the Blazers are an exceptionally talented team.

However, at the start of the season the Blazers roster didn’t look that impressive. Many “experts” were predicting that they would only be able to win about 20 games. How did the Blazers end up doing so much better than expected? Roy, Aldridge, Outlaw, and Webster all improved significantly, which isn’t really that surprising considering how young they are. Przybilla was also much better than last year, and somehow managed to stay healthy almost the entire season. But perhaps the most surprising thing was that the 3 new players we acquired over the summer (Jones, Blake, and Frye) all played significantly better than they played the previous year when they were on different teams.

So the question is, are these all very talented players that would have done well regardless of which team they played on? Or has Portland’s combination of chemistry, culture, and coaching helped them to improve more and be more effective than they would be on a different team?

Poll

Nature vs Nurture

Nature. The Blazers were sucsessful because they have talent.

4 votes

Nurture. Chemisty, culture, and coaching have helped the Blazers become better players.

28 votes

A little of both

57 votes

Neither, they just got lucky this year

1 votes

90 votes | Poll has closed