Discussion in 'Pistons and NBA' started by blueadams, Jul 1, 2009.
So I guess you don't like Charlie V?
It should be taken into account when you look at Charlie V's stats that he played in a kind of crazy offense where his guards got him some shots. If you put him on last years Piston team and prior he would be expected to get his guards shots. 3 point shots might be the only ones available to him in that scenario.
I know a new day is looming, but when you hear that Ben Gordon is their primary target it makes it seem the Pistons are going to continue being a guard dominated team. (We can continue blaming the bigs when things go south though.)
A big man who shoots 2/3rds of his shots from outside the paint and has a very low overall eFG of .488.
This compares to .498 for Sheed, .595 for Amir, .575 for Maxiell, .533 for Kwame, and .510 for Dyess.
The last big man that we had who shot that poorly was Nazr at .475.
But, what the heck. Let's try it out. Also, let's get a retread coach with bleached hair, let's double up at the SG position, then hope to trade our best player and our backup bigman for a real center. If that doesn't work, then fire the coach, bad mouth a few of the players, and hit ctrl+alt+del.
I'm really not that pessimistic, but it's just so easy to get on a roll like that.
Either we are going to be a bunch of coach hating player lovers, or a bunch of player hating coach lovers.
When I see the coach haters blaming players it gets a little confusing.
Bad looks on offense, poor defensive scheme, couldn't it have been the coach?
Which caused which?
Did he play better when he got more minutes, as you suggest? Or did he get more minutes when he played better? My guess is the latter.
If that were true it would mean that his coach was in possession of a working crystal ball.
How else would he know what his player was going to do before he did it?
Charlie's 26 minute averages are excellent, this means that in few minutes and many he produced, i.e., there was nary a time when his coach had to bench him indefinitely for nonproduction.
Why is it that we can look at Charlie's minutes and say "he got more minutes because he played better", but we look at Amir and say "he would have played better if he got more time" ?
I don't think he said those things. He just asked if the cause could have been the effect.
Those 2 examples are different because in the Charlie V case, he is not projecting what might have happened. He is simply asking if CV's actual play caused the coach to leave him on the floor longer, or if his stats were higher purely because he happened to be left on the floor longer.
CV's Sprocket Points performance justified salary for last season was $8.3mm. Not bad for 27 minutes a night. Young guy, room to grow - a five year deal starting around $9mm with raises, maybe $50 total probably isn't out of line.
I'm hesitant about the stat that started this thread though - that his numbers go up when he plays more minutes. First, they should for any player. But more importantly, he probably got more minutes because he was hot early (like against Detroit one game I remember). That doesn't mean that if he had gotten more minutes in every game he would have played better. The causality probably runs the other way.
Actually, I think he answered his own question.
Let's look again.
You got to admit though, the stuff we're saying about Charlie, the stuff we've said about Amir, totally conflicting stuff.
Charlie got more time just because he was good that game (despite his averages saying that he was usually good minutes nonwithstanding), yet Amir didn't get less time because he wasn't good, that of course, was the coach or some such.
Maybe because they play the same position and both would require 7-8 million per EACH. Joe has to be smart with his money. He needs a starting PF and a back-up and needs to spend the right amount on each. You can't sign two potential starting PFs and pay them both accordingly. One would end up coming off the bench and eating into funds you would need to spend elsewhere (can anyone say CENTER?).
Best "plan" I've heard so far. :nerd2:
I think, as has already been pointed out, that Joe's pursuit of Gordon means he already has a trade lined up for Rip or Tayshaun.
The odd thing is...[SARCASM]he's the guy I want the most.[/SARCASM]
The bad part is, Joe is color blind, and you're about to get your wish.
If people were bent out of shape about the money KB Toys is getting...just wait...
Bucks let walk Villanueva by two main seassons, money for Sessions and the other, Ersan Ilyasova.
Ersan this year has madured in his second year in barcelona(barça is may team i saw ersan a lot this two years), has improved long distance shot,dunks,blocks etc...the best player of barcelona toguether anderson,phisically very good playind nba style.
Ersan goes to buck this year,last year he improved but prefer stay in barcelona,this year he has gained the league and Villanueva is FA, bucks prefer this young player very cheap than Villanueva, to keep sessions.
The lose of Ersan is great for pistons but is a no replaceable player in all europe.
That´s why buck let Charlie Villanueva go,he prefer a more cheap player with good quality, they aren´t lakers spending money...
Yeah, if you listened to my FA podcast, we're going to need to bring in guys who are 80% as good as the guys we have now, for 50% of the money.
If this happens, nothing is written in stone, like KB if this pans out, it's a good deal, if not, the salary will probably be low enough to move him.
$5 million is an average salary. Villanueva might not be good in the areas that we prefer (shot blocking, rebounding) but he is far from an average NBA player. You need to watch this cat play.
He's already a 16+7 player in limited minutes IIRC
That was a very small # of people. Kwame's signing was a good move. I trust if Joe does this, he sees a similar upside. There is no point in signing a non-star to a long term deal, if there is no upside. There are easier ways to accumulate salary.
Can this be from coaching, technique, MPG, i.e.?
Bill Laimbeer would be a good teacher for this big guy.
I wouldn't bust my ass in shrillwauke either especially when you have michael Redd shooting like ti ain't no tommorrow.
It's not a matter of predicting what he'd do. If a player goes in as a sub and plays well, he'll stay in the game longer. If he goes in and plays poorly, the coach is more likely to pull him out.
Unfortunately, statistics cannot prove cause and effect, only associations. We could argue all day about what causes what, but my feeling is that it's more likely the coach plays him more when he's playing better than the idea that he plays better when he's playing more.
There are some interesting patterns, too. There's about a .4 correlation between his points per minute and his minutes, so there is pretty decent statistical evidence for a relationship between the two, to back up what the OP was saying. I'd wager that that's true for most players. There's also a .4 correlation between 3's per minute and minutes, which means when he shot more three-pointers, he played more. This is backed up by the ratio of 3-pointers to 2-pointers - when a higher percentage of his shots were 3's, he played more. It looks as if his role was to shoot three pointers, not get inside.
But perhaps most interestingly, there's a slightly negative correlation (-.10) between his rebounds per minute and his playing. It's not enough to draw conclusions about an association between the two, but it does indicate an increased rebound rate did not lead to more playing time (or vice versa), and hints that the coach actually would like him to be fighting for the ball less. It could explain why he was not a major rebounder.
I don't know how to wrap all that information in a pretty bow, so I'll just leave it here. You guys do with it what you will.
I'll have to listen, so I could respond to this properly.
Yeah, but why waste the time and money on a guy just so you can trade him again? You might as well go after the kind of talent you absolutely want to have as opposed to a guy you have to "hope" pans out.
This isn't your saying, but another thread suggested that via trade Boozer could be had for 7 Mil...and someone said they loved getting him at that price. How does that make sense? If 5 million is an average salary and we're talking about giving CV 8 Mil...then how is Carlos Boozer (a much better player) in no way worth 10? Nevermind the fact that, if you were able to get Boozer and magically only give up 7 Mil, he's surely going to jet the second his deal is up when you could have had him for long term, had you just paid a couple million per extra.
I will never understand why this team in particular, goes out of its way to acquire cap space only to refuse to spend it. Then the next year, they find more talent to get rid of so they can "be in a great position" to have cap space that they aren't going to spend.
Well, the two years prior to this one, he was an 11 ppg player and pretty inconsistent. THAT is more of a concern for me. People always %%%%% about a guy just having a breakout season because his contract is up so he can get a nicer contract. Well, case in point.
It may have been a small group, but it seemed much larger as you'll remember me spending the better part of the season defending his play. It just seems to me that CV is not worth 8 a year if people are going to suggest that they would only take Boozer for 7 (granted that was one response in a different thread, but the sentiment seemed to be agreed upon by others). I'd be more than happy to look at giving Boozer 10 if we're supposed to be 30 Mil under the cap. That doesn't seem unreasonable to me.
...and before you all start, yes, I know Boozer elected to stay in Utah..I'm just using him as an example because his name is also in trade rumors to us and his contract will come up at some point if that deal is made.
Separate names with a comma.