Darth Tater has a new contest for the forum
Check it out!
Discussion in 'Pistons and NBA' started by kpaav, Jan 3, 2013.
Austin Daye will make people forget about Will Blaylock.
I totally agree with this. Those stats are stupid, so you really can't trust them. Small sample size, ideal conditions... etc. etc. Everything about the Pistons right now says outlier. But, how far out? where will it adjust to? Ben Wallace in many ways was the perfect version of the "breakout of the unknown player" plot line.
I'm not really into Tom Waits, but Q-Tip with hot chicks, free Whitecastles, and a ride home? I'm down.Would Austin Daye's potential salary also pay for airfare and a hotel room for the Pistons 18,000 most dedicated fans? I think it would.
Great analogy. They are both from Washington.
The truth is we don't know what other GMs have offered. It would not surprise me at all to have seen a bevy of 2nd-round pick offers for Daye, but Joe not pull the trigger because he thinks Austin is worth more. He's shooting .650 3pfg% right now, and shown (throughout his career as well) that he's a clutch shooter, which always has value. It'll take another few weeks at his current performance level before other GMs notice, much less start to buy into the idea that he's anywhere near as good as he's performing. If he's still shooting above .500 by the trade deadline, someone will offer up a first for him. That being said, I personally want to see if he and the rest of this unit can keep it up. It's a small, small sample size, but there's hope here to believe that Daye has more value to the Pistons than he'll bring in return. Personally, I'm in a wait-and-see mode.
Joe? ...is that you?
As members of perhaps the most intellectual basketball forum on the internet, I think we should avoid two things when discussing players. 1. small sample sizes: Sure, Charlie is playing well the last 2 weeks but what about the 2 YEARS prior to this hot average streak. Same with Austin Daye. Let's keep things in perspective guys. 2. Piston player comparisons: For me, I'm not impressed when someone says "Player X has led the Pistons in (insert statistical category here) for the last 2 years!" The reality is, the Pistons don't have anyone spectacular. I believe that Andre Drummond will be spectacular but nobody else on the team can be justified as a postitve comparrison in any major category. Framing an argument around the fact that Brandon Knight leads the Pistons in assists means nothing to me. The reality is that no current Piston averages 5 assists per game. (This is just an example of one category, there are many others.) I want players that lead the NBA in statistical categories not dudes who can lead a last place team in a given category.
Bdl, we wouldn't have anything to talk about if you only want nba leaders mentioned. It would turn into a miami heat forum. It's all about upgrading our roster. It makes sense to figure out who the most effective players on the team are, even if they are subpar overall.
Correction... all we would talk about would be Andre Drummond's offensive rebounding percentage.
Why is important to figure out who is most effective among a bunch of sub-par guys? If your dancing with the hottest chick in a club full hideous looking women, your still dancing with an ugly woman. (Female members, sorry for such a chauvinistic analogy. Feel free to substitute the gender of your choice.) I'm not saying that we need to go out and get a bunch of league leaders at every position. I think that trying to get a "top 10" guy at every position is a good model to shoot for. I think that it makes sense to set our standards a little higher than praising a guy for leading the team in assists when he's averaging 4 per game. I don't think that Joe is calling other GMs and trying to sell them on taking Stuckey's contract off our hands by telling them that "he's leading our team in dimes".
Greg Monroe is ranked #4 in assists per game for Centers in the NBA!!!!
Your assists argument is a straw-man; nobody's praising either Knight or Stuckey for leading the team in assists. A top-10 guy at every position is a terrible model to shoot for because it's not feasible. I can't say as I've seen it in my lifetime, and in the salary cap era, it's even harder. The last team I've seen that could possibly make the claim to have that was the Lakers squad that the Pistons beat in the finals in '04, but even then, that was only four. The goal is to make your team work as best as possible, with everyone playing their roles in the most efficient way possible, you don't need the best at each position. Certain factors have been shown to be vital elements for success - eFG, Rebounding %, A/TO, to name a few - and you seek to maximize them as a team. Drummond is an excellent rebounder and post defender, so that allows the bench to be a little weaker in perimeter defense because that part of the game is a little less important. Villanueva and Daye are good three-point-shooters and terrible defenders, which means they're going to be serviceable but never top-10, but on the Pistons they have high +/- ratings because they provide a service (three-point shooting) that the team lacks otherwise. Look at it this way - only one player can be producing at any one point in time (whether it be generating an assist, getting a rebound, shooting a basket, blocking a shot, etc.). As a simple exercise, put a player on the court with a shooting machine. The shot goes up, and the player gets the rebound 100% of the time (eliminating all outliers where the ball goes over the backboard, out of bounds, etc.). If you put two players on the court, if they're of equal quality, then each will get the rebound 50% of the time. If you put Drummond and, say, Andrea Bargnani on the court, Drummond might get the rebound 70% of the time. Varejao, as an example, might also get the ball 70% of the time, for a +20% marginal rebound rate (just made up the term, so if it already exists, my bad). So if both of them have a 20% marginal rebound rate, one might think that if you put both of them on the court with Bargnani, then they would have a 90% (50% + 20% + 20%) rebound rate. That's not the case, however, because marginal rates aren't additive; they multiply. Without crunching the numbers (since it's a small stat anyway), you can expect that the two will grab somewhere between 80% and 85% of the rebounds between the three players. Now, there's clearly a benefit in adding Varejao to the equation, but you're not receiving full value out of his addition, since you would be paying for that theoretical 20%. Why does this matter? Because you effectively have to work harder to build on your strengths. You want to spend your money where you're bad, where it will improve the team the most. This means that you want to keep the guys on your team that are the best at what they do and supplement that with players who do what your team needs - unless you get really lucky, you are probably going to overpay for free agents, being that they represent limited supply and high demand. The Pistons are not good ball distributors, but it helps to know who is the best Pistons' A/TO guy, because you want to keep that guy and replace the worst one with someone like Jose Calderon. A team is like a puzzle - it doesn't matter how pretty each individual piece is, if they don't fit together, it's not going to work. You want guys that put the ball in the basket efficiently within your offense. With Drummond on the court not needing the ball in his hands, CV and Daye do this. With the three of them on the court needing coverage, Bynum's driving skills are maximized because he doesn't need to weave through traffic. This makes his turnover rate go down. He also doesn't need to shoot over three guys, which makes his shooting percentage go up. If he gets doubled, he can just throw it up to Andre, or pass it out to CV or Daye. With the exception of Bynum, they're all tall, and their defensive rebounding percentage is pretty good. The squad is well-balanced, and very effective together; they're +58 in 91 minutes of action together, which dwarfs the +/- per-minute production of every other four-man squad in NBA.com's top 50, save Crawford/Paul/Barnes/Jordan and Crawford/Barnes/Jordan/Griffin, both of the Clippers. The bench is clicking right now, and it's a beautiful thing to behold. Daye, CV, and Bynum were in limbo last year, and adding Drummond has turned them into a force. You really don't want to monkey with it, so the fixes actually need to come to the starters, who keep digging them huge early holes.
It ain't true, we got things to diss :-) . Lainbrane, that's what sensible vs sensitive all about.
You don't think the Wallace x 2, Tay, Billups and Rip team were each in the top 10 for their positions in the NBA the 2 years they played in The Finals?
Exactly 100% agree Laimbrane. The goal is not the player at each position. The goal is to win, make the playoffs, and ultimately win the championship with what you have. Sometimes the sum is greater than its parts. To use a stock/investing analogy which I is what I am interested in and constantly study. You create a portfolio and diversify. Some days one stock will do better than the others, some days the laggards will do better than the blue chips. The point is not every stock will be hot all the time, but at the end of the day or fiscal period you measure your performance on whether the portfolio as a whole has made money over time than when you started at the beginning of the period. Some stocks you may cut because they discontinued their streaks of dividends or have become over valued, other stocks you may add because they are undervalued and are on the brink of becoming dividend champions. You are constantly monitoring the portfolio and the bottom line. As our Pistons portfolio is currently constructed it works so far, could there be improvements, sure but we may have to wait for the right opportunity to make a trade or acquisition for value. Same goes for the stocks and constructing a portfolio of diversified investments.
We have a distressed bond portfolio with a couple penny stocks and some leftover enron clas action claims.
Separately, each of these guys were good, but not great - none of them have had anywhere near the success anywhere else that they did here, either before or after. What made this team great was exactly this balance I'm talking about - they all fit perfectly together, complemented each other, covered for each others' weaknesses, and became a team. When they played as a unit like this, it made them look better than they were. Maybe that's what BDL was talking about when he was referring to a top-10 at each position... I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and say that he's right so long as we're both right. ;)
They were rated as within top 10 after their 2003-2004 run.
All of them (meaning Tay, Billups and Rip) were after the fact, yes. They were all top 10 when they defended the following year. You could probably make the same case for these Celtics after they won in '08. It is hard to believe there was a day when legitimate people wondered who the best young SF in the East was, Tay or Richard Jefferson.
Separate names with a comma.