Hollins, pt. i: offense
by Stop-n-Pop on Aug 12, 2009 6:00 AM CDT
75 comments
OK, now that we're back into the swing of things after a vacation I thought it would be a good idea to take a look at the newest Wolf: Ryan Hollins. Hollins is a 24 year old backup center with solid size, length, and athleticism. You can view his career numbers at Basketball Reference by clicking here. Before we start breaking down his game, I would like to make a few general points:
- Ryan Hollins is a backup, is a backup, is a backup. We are talking about a guy who will likely get anywhere between 13-20 mpg. He will be playing a large chunk of his minutes against lineups and opponents that themselves perform below league averages. His dqual numbers from last season were .791 in Charlotte and .768 in Dallas. In other words, his opponents performed anywhere between 21 and 24 percent below league average. All he has to do is perform at a replacement-level against sub-par subs and the Wolves will have everything they need from the guy; anything extra will be gravy.
- Hollins' player type is a necessary addition to a team running out a starting front court of Al Jefferson and Kevin Love. This team needs length and athleticism in a bad, bad way and Hollins' physical numbers fit this bill. That being said, it remains to be seen if he has the skills to supplement his size on the court. (BTW: I recently heard Dan Barreiro complaining about a "Wolves-related website" writing about Hollins being just what the team needed [along with a pair of long athletic wingmen] in order to get the ship back on the right track. That sounds suspiciously like something this website might have put out and I find it amazing that a talk show host who purportedly prides himself on nuance would make such a clumsy point about an argument no one is really making. There is quite a difference between player type and a player actually fitting that bill in terms of functional performance.)
- Ultimately, Hollins' worth will be measured against his 3-year $7 mil contract. Hollins has made just over $1 mil in his career to this point. He is being paid on potential, as Dallas was unwilling to match the offer sheet and his net numbers don't exactly jump off the page.
Now that we have that out of the way, let's apply the first rule of player evaluation: who or what are we using as a bar for performance? In Hollins' case, I think the best place to start is to look at young backup (or limited-minute) centers who have played at or below the MLE or who were on the free agent market this off-season. Our peer group will consist of Shelden Williams, Marcin Gortat, Aaron Gray, Joakim Noah, JaVale McGee, and Chris Anderson. These players played between 10 and 24 mpg and none of them took more than 5.5 fg/game. I'm not saying that all of these players could have been available to the Wolves; rather, they represent a group of players that Hollins' future role will be weighed against. Let's take a look at how these players stack up in some key offensive areas in order to get a sense of how good they are, what they bring to the table, and how they play:
| 2p% | Jump (att%/eFG) | Close (att%/eFG) | close blk | oreb% | fga/game | pts/play | ft/fg | draw foul | |
| Williams | .452 | (31/.333) | (51/.457) | 29% | 12.2% | 4.5 | 0.86 | 21 | 11.7% |
| Gortat | .567 | (24/.380) | (55/.644) | 12% | 11.9% | 3.0 | 1.03 | 14 | 12.6% |
| Hollins | .525 | (27/.188) | (29/.294) | 59% | 10.8% | 2.2 | 0.89 | 29 | 19.2% |
| Gray | .488 | (16/.296) | (72/.492) |
16% |
11.7% | 3.0 | 0.84 | 20 | 13.9% |
| Noah | .558 | (6/.227) | (53/.444) | 23% | 13.3% | 4.6 | 1.0 | 33 | 18.6% |
| McGee | .494 | (37/.264) | (37/.448) | 10% | 10.6% | 5.2 | 0.93 | 28 | 18.4% |
| Anderson | .560 | (25/.333) | (31/.544) | 19% | 11.8% | 4.0 | 1.01 | 45 | 19.3% |
I chose these numbers because limited-minute bigs need to be able to efficiently shoot from close range, grab offensive rebounds, and get to the line.
Before I go any further, let me take yet another opportunity to talk about just how much the Wolves could use Joakim Noah. I really hope Corey Brewer works out and that he fully recovers from his knee injury and I wish him the best in life but holy crap: wrong Gator. From size to rebounding to shot selection awareness to efficiency to an ability to draw fouls and get to the line when he does have the ball, Noah is the perfect fit next to Big Al and the Big Piranha. Anywho...
The first thing you will notice about Hollins is that he is a terrible, no-good, awful jump shooter who takes waaaayyyyyyy too many jump shots. Look at Noah: only 6% of his shots are jumpers. Why? He's a terrible jump shooter. The problem for Hollins is that he isn't much of a close-range shooter either, shooting a Bassy-esque .294 on close jumpers with a mind-bending 59% of them being blocked. This is a good ol' fashioned "WTF?!" sort of stat. Hopefully it is something of an outlier, as he was able to pull a .528 eFG in 07/08 with only 22% of them being blocked. We're also talking about a guy who took less than 3 shots a game so Small Sample Size Theater is somewhat in play. Ultimately, I guess we'll have to wait and see but it is definitely something to keep an eye on as I'm not really sure how a 7-footer with plus athleticism could have his shot blocked so frequently...even with so few attempts.
Where Hollins makes up for his poor shooting is with his frequent dunking. In 07/08, 23% of his shots were dunks. This past season that number shot up to 44% of his attempts. This is how a guy with sub .300 numbers on his jump shot can end up with a 2p% over .500. If there is anything in Hollins' offensive repertoire to get somewhat excited about, it is the thought of him eventually taking ally-oops from Jonny Flynn and (hopefully) Ricky Rubio. The guy can really get up and down the court and to the rim.
The only other big positive Hollins has on the offensive side of the court is his ability to get to the line. In the 07/08 season he ranked 4th among all centers in free throws per field goal attempt. This past season he averaged 29 ft/fg with the highest drawf% on our list.
Looking at the stat sheet it is pretty easy to see that Hollins is a fairly limited offensive player in a half court setting. There is really no way around his extremely poor jump shot numbers as well as his modest OReb%, ast-r, and ppr. However, the guy does have some things that make you perk up just a little bit: His dunk numbers, % of close shots and % of attempts within the first 10 seconds of the shot clock (51%) suggest that he can really get up and down the court and this is something that could be useful on a team that is apparently being built for such a style.
In comparison to his small peer group, Hollins is clearly never a guy that you'd want to choose for 1/2 court ball, rebounding, or shooting. His offensive value will largely be determined by the Wolves' ability to place him in situations where he clearly is more comfortable and able to produce. In other words, this guy had better not be given the green light to shoot a bunch of jump shots and he better hustle up and down the court. It would also be nice to see him up his offensive rebounding numbers, as a 7-footer with athleticism should be able to at least reach Aaron-Grayian heights.
In the next post we'll look at what Hollins brings to the table in terms of defense, overall efficiency, and how well he can hang on to the ball.
0 recs |
75 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Better fit with Love than Jefferson
One of the things I (and I can probably say a collective “we”) hoped for out of the “athletic shot-blocking center” that we all wanted was the ability to move Al to PF for stretches. I don’t think we can do that with Hollins. With no jump shot to speak of, and Al being such a back to the basket, post-up player, I don’t see them on the court much together. They will just clog up the lane for each other. Hopefully Love’s jump shot reappears this year, and we can put Hollins and Love together.
by Cedarpenguin on Aug 12, 2009 7:25 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I disagree
I understand the reasons, but it’s also the case that he draws his defender away from Jefferson because he’ll gobble up any misses for putback dunks. So if Jefferson has to shoot against a double team that includes Hollins’ man, Hollins benefits and the team scores anyway. Or if Jefferson can find Hollins cutting to the hoop, that’s another way to get easy basket. Rambis couldn’t shoot, either, but he played with Kareem for a long time, and the Lakers were a remarkably efficient offensive team, as Rascal mentioned in another thread.
by pagingstanleyroberts on Aug 12, 2009 10:40 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
My hope is...
…that Rambis can coach this kid to keep his feet on the floor more and stop being a fouling machine. If he can do that, then Hollins will be a solid player for us off the bench.
by Grover M on Aug 12, 2009 7:37 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
speaking of coaching
I’m hoping that along with Hollins, the Wolves pick up Garrett SIler and develop him too. The two players are pretty much the antithesis of each other — but both could be developed in a couple of years into the viable big men that a championship level team needs.
Having said that, I agree with Stop & Pop that Hollins will forever be a backup – primarily due to his lack of bulk.
by levi_mn on Aug 12, 2009 4:07 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Always like your posts
It’s nice to read something so well thought out and backedup by research. I see the wolves just trotting him out when the Al/Love frontcourt needs to go up against an extremely athletic opposing front court and then just when they feel that they can really run on some team (or more specifically that teams scrubs).
by TheEvilProfessor on Aug 12, 2009 7:40 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Hollins
I’ve never seen Hollins play, but from what has been written about him, he sounds like a good pickup for what we need down low.
Until I actually see the guy play once or twice, this isn’t worth much, but I think he could end up starting. Not necessarily more than 20 minutes per game, but just to make sure we’re big enough against the opposing starting five, and then more minutes again when the other starting front line is out there. Mostly for matchups. Lakers started Bynum over Odom, despite the obvious talent difference there. I won’t be shocked if we do the same—provided that Hollins can play defense noticeably better than our other big men.
by Andy G on Aug 12, 2009 7:48 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
good to have you back!
for the money, i think Hollins was an excellent pickup. especially if some Songaila/Cardinal/Rambis hustle rubs off on him. a guy with his natural ability who plays at a 110% would be wonderful.
plus i have a dream/nightmare scenario where everyone else fouls out and we have a Pecherov/Hollins frontcourt out there. tallest and skinniest in the league?
by johndough on Aug 12, 2009 9:55 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Pryz + LMA?
Jennings: F*** the Knicks, them n***** is always going to be weak.
by Xand1 on Aug 12, 2009 11:19 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Toss in some more thin frames:
PG Rubio
SG Brewer
SF Pecherov
PF Love
C Hollins
“One of these things is not like the others,
One of these things just isn’t the same!”
by feral on Aug 12, 2009 1:35 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
For a back up 5
Hollins is a good pickup that can possibly supplement a running style. Man, you have to stop reminding us that we could have had Noah prowling around the court.
by Krotz the Wall on Aug 12, 2009 10:20 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Kahn's letter to the fans
Have you guys seen the letter Kahn wrote to fans? It wasn’t supposed to go out as it was and the editor notes have been leaked. http://firedavidkahn.wordpress.com/
by firedavidkahn on Aug 12, 2009 10:34 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Is this the best use of your time?
Not that a guy who checks out a basketball blog ten times a day should be one to criticize, but really….
How can you feel this strongly that Kahn is not doing a good job? Did you have a fire McHale website, or a fire Wittman website? If so, you’d at least have some credibility.
by DougW on Aug 12, 2009 10:53 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
or...
maybe you are a disgruntled Seattle fan, hoping the Wolves maintain the status quo, so you can grab our team after we go bankrupt?
by DougW on Aug 12, 2009 10:54 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Clippers
Hey Doug,
I’m actually a Clippers fan and see the Wolves coming to close to us as the worst franchise. The Kahn site is my contribution. http://firedavidkahn.wordpress.com/
by firedavidkahn on Aug 13, 2009 10:03 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Conceptually interesting
but not your best effort in terms of execution. This could have been quite funny and snarky, but ultimately, you blew your opportunity. I’m not clear on the joke you’re making.
Though the grammatical error in [k10] is subtly amusing.
by Eric in Madison on Aug 12, 2009 11:00 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hi firedavidkahn,
My name is Grammar and I don’t believe we’ve met. I’d also like to introduce you to my sister, Syntax. You should get to know us better before you write another blog post.
by TimAllen on Aug 12, 2009 11:16 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
What is
fdk is really Bill Duffy trying to get McHale back?
"Come on Eddie, let's get serious."
by biggity2bit on Aug 12, 2009 1:07 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Grammar Police, Tim Allen speaking
Dear [Name Redacted]
As a valued member of the Timberwolves family, I’m pleased to share with you that we’ve hired Kurt Rambis to be our new head coach. (This is wrong. Kahn is saying he is a valuable member of the Wolves family when he’s trying to call the fans valuable members) The search was extensive and thorough, and I’m completely confident that Kurt is the right man to help us develop into a championship-caliber team. (This is a horribly designed sentence for so many reasons. It wouldn’t be and, it would be so. You wouldn’t add completely to work with confident. Also, small words make a simple sentence meander and letters don’t meander. Good syntax might, which this isn’t. We’ll revisit syntax later.
Kurt played for Pat Riley and coached alongside Phil Jackson, arguably two of the three greatest coaches in NBA history. He is ready for this. (The last sentence is not needed. Writing emails/letters to fans should be tight.)
During my search for our next head coach, I identified three threshold issues that became the criteria I measured the candidates against. These are some cornerstone philosophies that will guide us the next few years and I wanted a coach that could aggressively execute against all three. (Saying the same thing twice, making the second sentence unnecessary.)
(1) I want our franchise to become the league leader in player development, and player development starts with the head coach.
(2) We will be a running, up-tempo team. Yes, there will be many instances when we will need to rely upon Al Jefferson and a halfcourt offense, but our identity will be fastbreak basketball.
(3) The minutes distributed to our young nucleus in the next two years must be done with an eye toward the big picture and not the short term.
With his vast experience in the NBA as a championship player and coach, Kurt has the ability to help lay the foundation for what we aim to be — NBA champions. He is, by all accounts, hard-working and a hands-on teacher. I know he will shape and mold our players to bring out the best in them. (Got it already, so I cut it.)
Tim, You’re right, I put canceling instead of cancel. You should never have mistakes on a post, so I’m embarrassed by it, but you are still confused. The mistake falls under a misspelling, which is separate from grammar and a whole different world than syntax. Do you know these are different or did they sound nice in trying to rip someone? Do you have any idea what syntax is? I doubt it, because sentences in a business letter, an email to fans and news articles aren’t focused on syntax. They are fact and opinion based, so they want to use as few words as possible. The goal is to get a point across.
Any idea what I’m talking about? I’d love more than anything to hear your definition of syntax and a bonus would be to read something from you that has good syntax. Better yet, point out all the places in my article that have grammatical mistakes. Just to help you out, a grammatical mistake would be a missing period, a comma, misusing a comma splice and so many more, including the misuse of an m dash. The best part about your rip on me is that you’re ripping a letter written by Kahn. I added my comments and helped him tighten it up, but most of those aren’t my words.
Looking forward to hearing back from you.
Warm regards,
http://firedavidkahn.wordpress.com/
by firedavidkahn on Aug 12, 2009 5:55 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Life's but a walking shadow
A poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage. And then is heard no more: it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
by TimAllen on Aug 12, 2009 7:55 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Fire David Kahn vs Tim Allen
LOL!!!
by Jose Cordoba on Aug 12, 2009 8:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Debate
Hey guys,
The debate continued at http://firedavidkahn.wordpress.com/. Timmy, some people have jobs and can’t sit on blogs all day. Also, why are you quoting Shakespeare? Does it make you feel better. Is your confidence growing? Have you figured out syntax yet? Do you know the difference between a grammatical mistake and a punctuation error yet?
I must point out that Timmy found three mistakes on http://firedavidkahn.wordpress.com/. Good work buddy—can’t wait to hear back from you.
Best,
David Kahn
by firedavidkahn on Aug 12, 2009 11:53 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Give it up.
Perilously close to Austin’s finest canned meat.
(678): Words of Wisdom: ordering a pitcher of whiskey cokes, putting a straw in it, and calling it your drink is not socially acceptable
by CaliWolf on Aug 13, 2009 12:51 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think I see a lot of similarities between Hollins and Rodney Carney.
Who, by the way, we should re-sign.
by LoveTo on Aug 12, 2009 11:19 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
nice numbers analysis
… but we need to judge this hire by the one number that seems out of place: $7M over three years. Kahn is sticking his neck out a bit on this one as Hollins hadn’t yet earned $1M for his time otherwise in the NBA… and salaries are where the real judgement on worth come in, especially for new contracts.
Now you could argue that, as a fourth-year “veteran”, Hollins is coming off a rookie and second year contracts and so it just LOOKS like – in other teams’s opinions – he isn’t worth very much (… or not!)
New contract value is key and in any case, a comparison with Noah, of course, will always end up looking bad. The question really is “need” and “value for the money” so a better comparison would be with 27-yr old Chris Wilcox – 16 MPG, 5.4 RPG, 7.2 PMG – who just signed on as a FA with Detroit on July 19th. Here’s a guy who took a 2-yr. $6M contract… Hollins looks absolutely feeble in comparison.
Incidentally, http://www.nba.com/players/index.html has an AutoTrader-funded quick-comparison tool… but I like your stats much better for this five position. How did you come up with them?.
It’s all signed and sealed now, but what I don’t get is that Kahn continues to get a free ride by Minny fans. Has he indeed been living up to his “out work, out think” promise? Just the frenetic pace of changes Kahn has been running through would suggest otherwise.
But people get distracted thinking that any change is better – or at least good – especially in these dog days of summer. (What’s the term? “basketball jones”?)
by artreddin on Aug 12, 2009 11:49 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Solid
Wilcox: $3 million per season
Hollins: $2.3 million per season
So Hollins is cheaper. But, point taken on salaries.
I’m not sure Wilcox is seen as much of a shot blocker and rim protector. He also can no longer get the “potential premium” that Hollins is getting because everyone knows exactly what Wilcox is. Wilcox also has a reputation around the league for not playing too hard on defense, so he might not have taken well to the “you’re coming off the bench to run the floor, rebound, and block shots” message.
Maybe someone else can dig up more stats on Wilcox to confirm or refute my suspicions.
I, for one, am very happy that the Wolves did not sign Wilcox.
by littleboxes on Aug 12, 2009 11:56 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I wouldn’t call me Kahn lovefest a free ride. First, you’ve got to acknowledge the guy doesn’t have much to work with in terms of assets. Second, realize that it’s going to take a while to build all of these minor, seemingly insignificant deals, into something meaningful.
For me, and I would imagine for most, it is just refreshing to hear someone admit the roster lacks talent, communicate a vision, and take some real (if small steps) in that direction.
Yes, there is a heavy does of hope in my new found positivity and Kahn may fall flat on his face. But at least he’s taking some swings at the plate, our old GM didn’t even get off the bench.
by DougW on Aug 12, 2009 12:41 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'll write..
….a bit more on the salary in the last post in this series. Ultimately, I think $2-3 mil/year for a replacement-level player who plays 15-20 minutes is a good bargain. Keep in mind that the Wolves had only 3 players with more than 1 win above replacement-level last year: Jefferson, Love, and Miller. Foye and Shelden Williams came close but ultimately ended up where Hollins was: 0.9. If Hollins can produce along the lines of what he did last year off the bench, the Wolves will have exchanged Foye or Williams’ production for a much cheaper option; at the very least, he can hopefully do what Williams did with better athleticism and height. The Williams comparison will be especially interesting as he made over $3 mil last year and was signed by the Celts for, I believe, $1.3 mil this year. Who knows if he would have asked to stay with the Wolves.
Anywho, long story longer, $2-3 mil for a replacement level player off the bench is the hope here. If that is the case, then it’s a good signing. If not, then he will have to be viewed in relation to a guy like Williams, who signed a single-year deal for less and who could have likely brought similar production, albeit in a different style of play.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
by Stop-n-Pop on Aug 12, 2009 12:58 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
SnP
I fear that one of us doesn’t understand the meaning of replacement level. If it means what I think it means, then it’s NOT good to pay $2-3 million for that player.
My understanding of “replacement level” is “freely available talent.” In other words, replacement level should be available for the league minimum from the D-League. Anyone better than that should be above replacement level. If not, we are using a bad definition of replacement level.
My hope for Hollins is that he’s an above replacement level player. Replacement does not mean average. (And I hope someone can teach him not to foul so damn much).
by Eric in Madison on Aug 12, 2009 1:11 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think we're talking about the same thing...
…but that I’m placing more importance on finding (and paying for) a guy that can step in and provide performance at or above a theoretical fill-in. The Wolves weren’t even able to do that last year and much of their post-Al injury misfortune had to do with the minutes Love gave up rather than Jefferson (in other words, Love filled in for Jefferson while…well, it was ugly for who was filling in for Love). The Wolves paid a lot of money for guys like Cardinal, Madsen, and Williams to fill those minutes and they were, for the most part, unable to reach even replacement-level status. For $2-3 mil a year with 13-20 mpg off the bench, I’m perfectly willing to accept replacement-level play and anything extra is a bonus. Last year’s Wolves paid more for talent that couldn’t even make replacement-level value. I view Hollins as something of a necessary babystep to fill out the roster. The key for Hollins is to bring modest value off the bench for under 20 mpg and if he can do so in a way that produces more for the dollar than other 13-20 mpg backup centers (who themselves operate in the same at-or-barely-above-replacement-level area), then I think it’s a good value.
I think we both understand the concept but that I place a greater importance on having it in relation to last year’s awful roster. They need a functional, replacement-level backfill at the 4/5. They didn’t really have it last year…although, it could be argued that Williams was able to produce in limited situations.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
by Stop-n-Pop on Aug 12, 2009 1:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
also..
….if he is able to reach league average numbers, then I’ll be thrilled. I’ll also be wondering if they’ll have to pay him $4-6 mil after 3 years. “Average” players are very hard to come by, especially off the bench. Hollins will make less than what Mark Madsen made last season. He will likely (hopefully) produce on a level greater than Madsen and Cardinal and right around what Williams did at his best. Comparatively, and realizing that average in basketball isn’t as simple as finding a gross average of production, this is where I’m coming from in saying that it’s a good deal for a replacement-level player.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
by Stop-n-Pop on Aug 12, 2009 1:35 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, I wouldn't dispute that they got below replacement level
performance from guys last year. And I certainly don’t expect Hollins to be average.
But I still see a disconnect. Replacement level is a specific concept. How good is the best player you can pick up essentially for free? In other words, the best D-leaguers or a minimum salary guy you get for a vague future 2nd round pick or something.
If you are paying more than that for someone to be replacement level, you aren’t doing a good job with your resources, because that’s the definition of replacement level.
If they don’t get 15 minutes of above replacement level from Hollins, it isn’t a good signing. I have hopes that they can get that from him; I think it was a worthwhile signing.
by Eric in Madison on Aug 12, 2009 1:46 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
But...
….in practice, many players in that position fail to reach even replacement-level status, especially when you start putting guys into the context of the roles they will fill. Hollins is in a peer group that includes guys like Aaron Gray, Fab Oberto, Sean May, Stromile Swift, Robin Lopez, Patrick O’Bryant, Channing Frye, Jammal Maglore, D. Diop, Chris Wilcox, Jason Collins, Dan Gadzuric, Roy Hibbert, and Deandre Jordan. Out of those players only Gadzuric (1.2), Hibbert (2.3), and Jordan (1.8) perform above 1 win above replacement level and they are below what could be considered an average center (Hibbert is actually pretty average, especially considering he was a rookie). These are all sub 15 mpg guys who fill fairly similar roles to what Hollins will likely be asked to do. Is there potential for better value? Yes, Jordan could have been had or a guy like Shelden Williams could have been nice if the Wolves locked him in at what he agreed to with Boston. Even if you go up the mpg scale, it is filled with guys like Mikki Moore and Kwame Brown who are right around the same level. If Hollins can peformat a level like Oberto, Gray, or Lopez, he may be slightly overpaid but still a decent contract. If he shows some promise where he could eek his way into the realm of players who get 17-22 mpg and who are in-between replacement-value and average, then that’s all the better. I think it’s a successful signing if he can maintain his solid dmult numbers and produce between 0.5-1.5 warp. Anything extra, to me, is gravy and something to be modestly excited about.
In terms of a general argument about replacement value, I think the disconnect is between the literal definition and how it actually plays out in practice. Most “good” bench players operate in a range between replacement-value and “average”. Even these guys are hard to come across and I think the actual bar where WARP is calculated is currently higher than the numbers that, say, a D-League plug in could put up. I think Hollins is better than a D-League fill in (perhaps someone like Siler) and he’d produce more and be more effective but he’d still be in a low WARP range where there really wouldn’t be a huge statistical difference between his WARP numbers and a theoretical fill-in like Siler. Long story short, beyond the 7th and 8th men on a rotation, replacement-value can be a worthwhile goal.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
by Stop-n-Pop on Aug 12, 2009 2:28 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
How about thinking about it this way?
In the new system we’ll be playing in (assuming more run and fun than half court plod), the proposition becomes:
Hollins > G. Siler or C. Richards
And that’s interesting (at least for me) to look at it that way. What I take from it is that the Wolves are paying a premium for athleticism and (to a lesser extent) potential. I think it’s quite clear which of those players has the highest upside.
Time to earn those bucks Rambis!
(ps—anyone else find it odd that Rambis might only add one or two assistants and keep a bunch of the old assistants—per what Kahn said? I thought we wanted to be the league leader in player development—did our old assistants just not focus on this before or did I just not notice our league leading development last year—what am I missing here?)
"Come on Eddie, let's get serious."
by biggity2bit on Aug 12, 2009 4:04 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think that's fair..
….although a comparison to Shelden Williams may have to be thrown in there as well.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
by Stop-n-Pop on Aug 12, 2009 4:10 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
when it comes to centers
I’d say Shelden is “Al Jefferson Lite”.
And I may never come around to the idea that Al Jefferson is “championship level” center. I’d like to see major improvements in his help defense, and huge improvements in his ability to recognize and pass out of double/triple teams when he has the ball deep in the post.
by levi_mn on Aug 12, 2009 4:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Which to me is another way of saying
We’re about to find out just how good a teacher Rambis really is—or how committed Al is to getting better.
"Come on Eddie, let's get serious."
by biggity2bit on Aug 12, 2009 8:55 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm on the other side
in that I think Siler has the greater upside (besides being cheaper). In the Summer League, he actually looked and played like a center — unlike anyone we’ve ever seen in a Timberwolves uniform. Siler clearly was working on reducing his weight, which is easier that adding.
But no matter what, Rambis will earn his money. Hopefully, he’ll get results too.
by levi_mn on Aug 12, 2009 4:15 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I like the idea...
….of adding Siler as well. The guy was fun to watch and he had some nice skills underneath his layer of blubber.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
by Stop-n-Pop on Aug 12, 2009 7:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
roster slots
It may simply come down to roster slots. There’s no use speculating too much until we see what happens with QRIch.
Right now, there’s a slot with Ricky’s name on it and one other. If there is only one, do you go with Carney or Siler (or someone else)? Sure, the Wolves could buy out Brown or Atkins, but is either of Carney or Siler worth an additional 3/4 of a million?
by levi_mn on Aug 12, 2009 7:41 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'd vote for Carney
We know the guy can light up the 3 once every 5 games, and also fits the young and athletic with upside bill. Siler could become a player, but he’s got Oliver Miller and Stanley Roberts written all over him if he sticks in the NBA. Don’t get me wrong, I’m really pulling for the guy. But if I had to choose between the two, I’d go with Carney—plays a position we need help with, still young, and still coach-up-able. Just my opinion.
Besides, most recent stuff I’ve read about Siler has him sticking with the Hawks if he can because he thinks our center/PF situation here is too crowded.
"Come on Eddie, let's get serious."
by biggity2bit on Aug 12, 2009 8:59 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, it looks like there is less crowding down in Atlanta (with only Horford & Pachulia on the roster at C) so that might be wiser for him.
Myself, I think the Wolves are incredibly needy at Center And that’s counting Jefferson as a center. Oily, Songaila, Love just don’t hit my “C” spot.
by levi_mn on Aug 13, 2009 12:24 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Um....
…Hollins? A 4/5 rotation of Al/Love/Hollins with some Darius and Cardinal thrown in is acceptable for now.
(678): Words of Wisdom: ordering a pitcher of whiskey cokes, putting a straw in it, and calling it your drink is not socially acceptable
by CaliWolf on Aug 13, 2009 12:55 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's actually a pretty solid market value deal for Ryan Hollins
Hollins had a Win Score last year of 1.0. If you look at centers with a WS between 0.5-1.5 (DeSagana Diop, Theo Ratliff, Aaron Gray, DeAndre Jordan, Kosta Koufos, Jamaal Magloire, Robin Lopez, Hollins, Spencer Hawes, Robert Swift, and Olekisy Pecherov)*, you see that they earned $19,420,831 last season, for an average of $1,618,402.58 per player. So it’s more than the average contract for a center of his caliber last season. However, if you limit it to people who have signed second contracts (Diop, Ratliff, Magloire), than you see a contract total of $7,180,162 or $2,393,387.33 per player. And that’s almost exactly what Hollins received.
*I removed Chris Kaman from the list, because he’s at worst four times the player he showed last season. With his contract involved, the average is $2,410,069.25 per player, and $4,170,040.50 for players past their rookie contracts.
by McCleak on Aug 12, 2009 6:47 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah...
…it’s pretty in line with market value and I’m sure his final contract number was broken down by comparison to his peer group.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
by Stop-n-Pop on Aug 12, 2009 7:19 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
still not convinced; not in the least
Sorry to break in here – the debate with Eric in Madison on “minimal replacement value” below is quite enlightening – but I wanted to reply to littleboxes and DougW and then warn (!) anyone interested that I’ll be bringing up an important consideration that has somewhat misrepresented here, about thirty entries further down.
littleboxes - In order: There is no reason to presume most of what you are saying. The only stats you give are the salary ones but then after conceding the point of rough salary equivalency you ask for help with “more stats to confirm or refute my suspicions”.
As for shot blocking and rim protection, the latter is important but generally unquantifiable; the former quantifiable but generally unimportant. I know that for most fans – who look for the spectacular on the court – this is heresay, but two or three rebounds per game is actually much MORE valuable than even the elite level of two or three blocks per game: Rebound means possession, blocked shot means “it’s still up for grabs if it stays inbound”. And we can add to this that someone rated a “good blocker” may end up with only 1.4 BS per game!
So BS is really just that… so much BS, even when people pull up stats showing one player to be 20% more efficient at it than another. The important defensive figure is rebounding, and Wilcox does this in spades at a clip of one for every three minutes of play. Centers are paid to effectively block out opposition and second chance opportunities and you need a body like Wilcox’s or DeJuan Blair’s – not Hollins’s – to do it. To top it off, Hollins most outstanding stat is for racking up personal fouls… apparently from ill-timed jumping around precisely in attempts to block shots for the viewing public. Bad news indeed.
DougW – Kahn will go down in history as a GM who – on coming into office – immediately denigrated a previous team deal (Roy/Foye) as being among the worst in NBA history and then who promptly arranged one that , by all measures so far, is even worse! Admittedly he did get lucky in catching Rubio, a potential star… but Lady Luck is fickle: it might work out, it might not.
Right now not only are his hands empty but he’s also out two players who are starters or could otherwise make serious contributions on more than 90% of NBA teams. (In passing, for all you “McFail” whiners, it’s worth remembering that Roy was also passed over by five other teams in that particular draft.)
Also to say that Kahn hasn’t had much to work with in terms of assets is just sheer ignorance. The Wolves were probably one of the most fortunate franchises coming into the draft, with some astute maneuvering in trades (by McHale and company) leading to three picks, expiring contracts, and a 40-to-45 win team for next season with everyone healthy again… and all at a VERY reasonable price for talent and tickets. Sorry to say it, but by next January I won’t be the only one doing so: Kahn has frittered away most of this in very short order… and to the applause of almost all T-Wolves fans.
by artreddin on Aug 13, 2009 11:50 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
40-45 wins is being incredibly optimistic. Unless Flynn had completely blown up, that was probably the ceiling of that team.
Jennings: F*** the Knicks, them n***** is always going to be weak.
by Xand1 on Aug 13, 2009 2:51 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I believe the stats
also help illustrate how woefully overpaid Marcin Gortat is now.
Only cowards pray for rain.
by Auswolf on Aug 13, 2009 5:48 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I can't believe...
…Orlando matched. I get that they think he’ll be an asset this season in a trade but lordy, that’s a lot of money to hedge.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
by Stop-n-Pop on Aug 13, 2009 6:10 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
OK, a couple of things
I think the actual bar where WARP is calculated is currently higher than the numbers that, say, a D-League plug in could put up
If that’s true, then WARP is using an inaccurate measure for replacement level, and we should be very uncomfortable about what WARP is telling us. Because that’s what replacement level is. It’s the level of freely available talent, by definition. It isn’t just “whatever WARP says it is.”
Further, if he produces between 0.5-1.5 WARP, that’s fine. That’s above replacement level, and that’s what I’m hoping for. I certainly don’t expect a 15 minute guy to be average or better.
by Eric in Madison on Aug 12, 2009 3:05 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Oops
must have forgotten to hit reply.
by Eric in Madison on Aug 12, 2009 3:05 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't know...
…if it’s inaccurate or if there are simply too many moving parts for it to be a stat that is similar to what we all have in our heads when it comes to its use in baseball. I think you can suss out something along the lines of a fairly accurate representation of WARP value in terms of some broad numerical categories but…well, I think I’m doing a poor job of explaining myself. I guess the best way to say what I’m thinking is that I believe “average” in the NBA is closer to the concept of replacement-level than it is in baseball…if that makes any sense. I know the stat tries to measure the same thing but when you have 5 guys playing together I don’t think it’s as simple as it is in baseball. To me, if you have a replacement level performer from 8-12 on the roster, you have “average” players in their role. I don’t know how the baseball equivalent of that idea would be expressed. There are more dimensions in player eval in basketball than in baseball and that makes it tougher to deal with these pretty basic concepts. An average bench player isn’t average in terms of the league average but he can provide enough value to be considered more efficient than a starter depending on the quality of opponent he faces. Depending on the quality of the opponent, this player could have a neutral to slightly above 0 WARP number. Once you start throwing pace into the equation it really gets wacky. I know that WARP is generated by the use of OE, DE, bias, and +/-. These numbers are then used to create a win percentage for an imaginary team and then players can be weighed against the theoretical replacement player. I guess I’d rephrase what I said about WARP’s calculation to say that it cannot possibly take into account some of the multi-dimensional problems that come into play with basketball (quality of opponent, pace, quality of minutes, score differential during on-court time, etc). It’s just another tool to look at a small part of the game and there are other factors involved when talking about putting a green player into the lineup…like a D-Leaguer. It’s not that WARP is inaccurate; it’s just that it only measures the mean with a pool of players who have a number of things going for them because they are already in the league and have adjusted to a certain extent.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
by Stop-n-Pop on Aug 12, 2009 4:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
So I can try to understand what you are saying
It seems there are a few things in here:
1. It’s harder to measure these things in basketball than it is in baseball. I agree with you here; interactions are much more complicated in basketball. Still, we should hold the idea of replacement level in our heads. I’m uncomfortable with your pronouncements that we should be happy if we get replacement level for our millions on Hollins. I still think that’s a poor use of the idea of replacement level.
2. The average NBA bench spots 8-12 are essentially replacement level. I have no idea if this is true; I’m willing to take your word for it.
3. In baseball, replacement level is replacement level. If your bench is nothing but replacement level and below, then you have a bad bench. Bench players are generally below average players, but do something(s) well enough to be above replacement.
4. I’m not entirely sure the following is true, because I haven’t really thought it through, but logic suggests that the separation between replacement level, average, and, say top 10% of players should be wider in the NBA than it is in baseball. The reason I think this could be true is that the SD between team records is so much greater in the NBA than it is in MLB.
by Eric in Madison on Aug 12, 2009 4:27 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's fair
My argument with Hollins boils down to this: he is a) being paid accordingly to his peer group (see McCleak’s comments above) and b) that he is being paid for filling a role of a 3rd (maybe 4th) big on a team that was unable to field a replacement-level player in the 3rd or 4th big role last season.
I think point #4 is interesting, especially when you consider how a guy like LeBron or D-Wade can carry an entire team whereas if his teammates were on, say, the Wolves, they would likely be Bassy-esque or Gomes-esque players. This is the biggest problem when comparing WARP in basketball to WARP in baseball. Baseball is a one on one sport masquerading as a team game. Basketball has both, for a lack of a better analogy, quantum and classic mechanics. It has broad general rules but we really don’t seem to completely know how to deal with the constant motion of the game and how players like LeBron can affect the abilities of his teammates. This is another reason why I think NBA benches, especially from 8 and beyond, can survive and be productive with replacement-level players. Derek Fisher + Kobe Bryant is still a combo with a guy who had a 0.4 WARP yet somehow it all worked because of the other guy’s transcendent talent. Something is going on there at a very complex level that, at the very least, is going to require a whole lot of variables to figure out. In baseball, the replacement level guy simply goes up to the plate and gets smoked. In basketball, he can cling to something (3 pointers in Fisher’s case) and still come along for the ride in an effective and winning way….depending on who is around him.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
by Stop-n-Pop on Aug 12, 2009 7:34 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe the problem here is that we are trying to measure things that we
simply aren’t yet ready to measure.
We might lack the knowledge, data, and understanding to reasonably calculate something like WARP in basketball.
by Eric in Madison on Aug 12, 2009 8:00 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
yep..
…except that i know the items that make up basketball WARP are somewhat reasonable and a fairly solid scale of general worth. I’ll email Kevin Pelton to see if he has any insight on it…as he’s the guy who puts those numbers up.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
by Stop-n-Pop on Aug 12, 2009 8:27 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree about the 8th-beyond players.
Madsen was a rotation guy during the 03-04 season but a sideshow on less-talented teams. The 90’s Bulls were full of guys (Kerr, Paxson, Levingston, Buechler, King, Perdue, Wennington, Randy Brown) who contributed but faltered when given bigger roles on other teams. It’s part of the reason why the Clippers trade didn’t really bother me, as 8th-12th guys are available every offseason and this team has a lot of them.
by pagingstanleyroberts on Aug 12, 2009 8:52 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
To illistrate the point of the lakers positional value
here is the total positional PER of the Lakers current roster
PG SG SF PF C
Off 13.13 23.21 16.40 17.99 23.70
Def 16.75 13.90 13.96 16.10 16.47
Net (3.63) 9.31 2.44 1.83 7.23
With a rough 15 as an average baseline, you can see that the Lakers are strong overall at the 2/3, with better than average offense at the 4/5 to compensate for any defensive weaknesses. But at the point they significantly worse. This is just covered up because of the transcendent talents of Kobe and arguably Odom (when he is the 6th man) as they both have the ability to stretch the floor for their post players to such a degree that they don’t need the PG positions help. Not to overlook the inside combo of Gasol/Bynum. Any player that can stretch the floor has a great intangible value to his teammates that doesn’t always show up in stats. I would argue that the Lakers PER numbers are so good because of this balance. Each role player doesn’t have to overcome as much attention to add value to the team…makes them all look better than they are.
by TheEvilProfessor on Aug 13, 2009 9:25 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Umm..
I agree Eric. Also, if we were looking for a replacement level center with potential? Why didn’t we just take BJ Mullins with the 18th pick? He’d have been cheaper with more upside. It’s not like we’re trying to win now anyways, so why sign a player who will"complement" Al and Love so well? I like the Hollins signing if we were in a position to win, but by the time we’re a playoff team, Hollins will leave for a contract similar to Orlando’s backup big. Please tell me I’m way off
by SF on Aug 12, 2009 7:32 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Mullens..
…is a legit question, as was Jordan. I personally didn’t like either of them but they could have had both for much less than what they are shelling out for Hollins. I do think you’re glossing over the need for immediate backup size on this roster. If they are going to start Love and Al then they definitely do need a compliment. Otherwise, they’re looking at Brian Cardinal as the backup center. Could Siler provide what Hollins will? Dunno. Do they have their hearts set on Cole Aldrich next year? Dunno. But after letting Thomas go they needed a backup big in a bad way and I’m not sure they could have done much better for that amount of money.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
by Stop-n-Pop on Aug 12, 2009 7:37 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I liked Jordan more than Mullens
But also think that he was probably considered seriously before the draft but not worth as much as a player they could get with Charlotte’s pick. Even if he’s just a stopgap, Jaric was a similar stopgap as a backup combo guard two years ago, and he was valuable to that particular team.
by pagingstanleyroberts on Aug 12, 2009 8:55 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, let me repeat
I think the Hollins signing is a reasonable move. I have hopes that he can provide 15-20 minutes a night and do some things like run the floor OK and maybe block a few shots.
My concern is with the use of the term “replacement level.” To me, that has a specific meaning that doesn’t fit here.
by Eric in Madison on Aug 12, 2009 7:56 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Because Kahn could get a middle round pick next year
instead. Which also happens to be a much deeper draft at the 2/3 and 5 than this years draft. If your team is going to be weak anyway, just draft the BPA and worry about position later. If you are stacked at 3-4 positions like the lakers, you can always add decent role players to become competitive until you can really balance out your roster. Why is it that with Mullens superior skills that he couldn’t produce in college?
by TheEvilProfessor on Aug 13, 2009 9:28 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Speaking of Charlotte's pick...
I’ve read two different things: one said that it was lottery protected, while the other article said top 12 protected. This is obviously important as Charlotte should land somewhere between 9 and 15. Anyone know for sure?
by SF on Aug 12, 2009 9:07 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
our wonderful
draft page knows all
http://www.canishoopus.com/pages/draft-info
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
by Stop-n-Pop on Aug 12, 2009 9:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
tentative suppostions leading to a strong conclusion
Stop-n-Pop, you’re one of my heroes for caring so much about this team, but it seems to me that you’re starting to slip into becoming an apologist for Kahn.
At the start of this thread (62 comments on a roll-player backup center… wow!) you stated: “All he [Hollins] has to do is perform at a replacement-level against sub-par subs and the Wolves will have everything they need from the guy; anything extra will be gravy.” SnP
Others generally agreed [“Having said that, I agree with Stop & Pop that Hollins will forever be a backup – primarily due to his lack of bulk.” levi-mn] but then the hype started to kick in. It’s kind of flattering in a way, I suppose, that much of it was related to a post of mine about value for money… whatever.
The thing that Win Score misses is total contribution to the team for minutes played. David Berri warned against mis-using it as a stat but this seems exactly what is happening here.
The way you’ve written this up it almost sounds like Randy Foye and Ryan Hollins should earn or should have earned equivalent salaries (salaries being the true bottom line on evaluation after all the stats juggling). And this is patently false. Hollins logged 444 minutes, Foye 2494.
The overlooked factor is minutes played. For $2.3M/yr we get a center who in four years averaged 8.8 MPG, 1.8 TRB, 0.5 BLK, 1.6 PF, and 2.7 PTS. As you indicate, other important stats come into play, but it’s also had to ignore the rate of one foul for every rebound, even if Hollins was improving and snagging more than a normal share of offensive rebounds in his brief stint with Dallas.
Foye on the other hand, last year – and for not much more ($3.6M/yr) – had stats of 35.6 MPG (20% higher than normal because of lack of substitutes that were any healthier), 4.3 ASG (against 2.1 TOV… in 35+MPG!), 1.0 STG, 2.9 PF, and 16.3 PTS. The key number here is minutes: roughly four times the amount of work for only fifty percent more salary.
This is even more important than normal for the T-Wolves: it may be that Love can handle 30 minutes playing time this year, but last year he petered out completely at that level – not his fault for having a body still devoting resources to growing bone and muscle. Jefferson, if healthy, will log 33-35 MPG. That leaves a deficit at the 4/5 of roughly 31 MPG for Hollins and others… and Hollins, while more naturally gifted for the four, apparently can’t shot jumpers worth shit.
If Hollins only plays his average MPG we would need two more of him – with equivalent salaries – to fill the gap.
If we stick strickly to him playing Jefferson’s replacement, he’d have to up his minutes 50%. But, as a recent blog on the Ewing effect shows, performance sags noticeably with increased minutes… and there’s obviously a reason other coaches were not giving him more minutes. Also we’d then have to admit he’s more one-dimensional than other 4/5’s in the FA market.
Now most would say that comparing Foye with Hollins is not fair… and really it’s apples and oranges. My point however was value for money and WS does not address this in the sense of owners having to payroll enough – or good enough – players to fill the 240 minutes of every game. (BTW, want another misleading stat? Foye had almost a high BLK per game as Hollins!)
Seems to me it’s time to plug in a new stat: $AL per 36 min.
by artreddin on Aug 13, 2009 1:11 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I'm not really...
…sure how saying that a guy is a replacement-level (or slightly above replacement level) player who is paid at or very close to market value is buying into or kick starting any hype. Win Score isn’t being used here either. Since that was the bulk of your post, I’m not really sure how to respond.
I have also been very clear about Hollins’ entry in the Small Sample Size Theater.
Hollins is a 3rd or 4th big man. The big test for him will be to take what he did at 10-15 mpg and bring it up to 13-18 or even 15-20 mpg.
As for Foye, the guy simply did not produce last year. Outside of the fact that he was hopelessly stuck between two positions he was entering a contract year (along with Miller) and his $3.6 number likely would not have stayed put after the season.
With Kahn, I honestly don’t have any complaints so far. That’s hardly being an apologist. I’m sure the guy will eventually do something that we will have a lot of bad things to say about it but that hasn’t happened yet for me. The guy blew up a bad team and he has stockpiled picks and cap space. He still has a bunch of balls in the air and he could drop them at any moment but, to juggle metaphors even further, he can’t walk across the street without first putting his foot out the door.
Part of my sympathy for the guy so far is because he is doing some things that I have written about for a long time on this site: trade Miller, accumulate cap space, push for up-tempo ball, etc. A team with Miller and Foye probably tops out at 40-45 wins. I respect the guy’s willingness to throw that aside and go for something more. The fact that he is doing it in a way that, to me, seems intelligent is a bonus. That being said, if he trades for Jason Richardson or Gerald Wallace or if he makes a silly pick in next year’s draft, I’ll have plenty of non-apologetic things to say about the guy. Right now, I think he’s doing a fantastic job.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
by Stop-n-Pop on Aug 13, 2009 3:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
yes, fair enough...
… but in an early post here you DO bring up Win Score:
Keep in mind that the Wolves had only 3 players with more than 1 win above replacement-level last year: Jefferson, Love, and Miller. Foye and Shelden Williams came close but ultimately ended up where Hollins was: 0.9. If Hollins can produce along the lines of what he did last year off the bench, the Wolves will have exchanged Foye or Williams’ production for a much cheaper option; …
… then you commented about whether the S. Williams option might shake out better.
My point on the salary – which was my main point – is that there should be a way to rate performance minutes to salary. It doesn’t matter to me that much what other teams are paying their centers of less than 500 minutes per season (8.8 MPG, not 10-15 or 13-18 or 15 – 20 MPG… though we hope that Hollins can play to deserve such court time, and not just be out there because FO couldn’t afford anyone else). My father-in-law (q.d.e.p.) had a saying: “Mal de muchos, consuelo de pendejos!” …which is a wonderfully colourful way of stating that “the fact that everyone is doing it doesn’t make it right”.
As for Foye, well, …give the guy a break! Coming off a knee injury entering the season, an ankle injury in December, a hip pointer injury in early March that eventually proved season-ending… and he still put in 36 MPG. You posted on his play what I thought a very fair evaluation some month’s back … now you have Hollins’ replacing his production! Maybe I don’t understand, but is that the 2494 minutes production, the 214 rebounds production, the 303 assists production, or the 1,139 points production that you’re talking about?
P.S. Yes, fair enough on Kahn… this particular move is not such a big deal, neither to condemn nor to sing his praises.
by artreddin on Aug 13, 2009 5:45 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
sorry
To be technical about it, I see now that you were using WARP (Wins Above Replacement-level) and not WS (that was McCleak’s contribution, from which you concluded fair market value).
To be honest, here, I also admit I don’t really understand the difference, other than assume from your dialogue with Eric in Madson that Replacement-level (slightly better than a D-leaguer) gets tagged as some number and Wages of Wins’ WS is then related back to that. Is that how it works?
Ahhhh, the trials of educational blogging…
by artreddin on Aug 13, 2009 5:56 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
No problem..
…WARP, in the NBA, can be found at Basketball Prospectus. You can read about BP’s card stat page on the following link:
http://www.basketballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=518
Win Score and WARP are two completely different stats. Here is BP’s glossary:
http://www.basketballprospectus.com/glossary.php?search=WARP
As for Foye, remember that he put those minutes up on a 24 win team and that he has been injured in the past 2 seasons and is entering his 4th year in the league at the age of 26. Hollins won’t be replacing his production; rather, a roster spot is being filled with a player who has equal value to replacement value than Foye, albeit with significantly fewer minutes. The real test for the Wolves will be how Ellington and Brewer are able to fill in the 2 guard spot.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
by Stop-n-Pop on Aug 13, 2009 6:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Paging Tim Allen
I’m impressed there is this much to say about a player that will have a hard time getting off the bench? I guess it’s all we really have, unless we want to start projecting Quentin Richardson’s numbers.
I’m also wondering, have you guys talked to or heard from Mr. Allen? He was going to give me a lesson on syntax and show me the difference between a grammatical mistake and a punctuation error.
http://firedavidkahn.wordpress.com/
by firedavidkahn on Aug 13, 2009 2:14 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Lordy, you can use this as your new avatar
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
by Stop-n-Pop on Aug 13, 2009 3:03 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
+1
"Come on Eddie, let's get serious."
by biggity2bit on Aug 13, 2009 3:28 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
Related FanPosts on Canis Hoopus
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
