Kevin Love's Epic FIBA Stats: It's not just the rebounds.
by John Doe on Sep 2, 2010 2:05 AM CDT
Email
PrintPart One: The Stats You'll Expect
Kevin Love leads Team USA in rebounds, with 28 through 4 games. Behind him is Lamar Odom, with 27, and Kevin Durant, with 26. This means Love has the team's highest per game average, 7.0 rebounds/game.
Since he is playing far fewer minutes than either of those two, he has far and away the best rebound percentage on the team (and of anyone in the tournament, for that matter), with 35.4%, compared to 17.1 for Odom, who is next highest on the team.
As far as Love's rebounds are concerned, the most relevant comparison is to his fellow Team USA big men, Lamar Odom and Tyson Chandler.
- Love: 8.3 points/game, 7.0 rebounds/game
- Chandler: 2.8 points/game, 2.5 rebounds/game
- Odom: 5.3 points/game, 6.5 points/game
Give Love a slight advantage versus Odom, and a major one versus Chandler. We should probably also look at minutes played. Love and Chandler have totals of 42 and 38, respectively, so there's no great discrepancy there. But Odom has played a whopping 81 minutes, nearly double the amount of either of the other two. Adjusting Love's averages from 10.5 minutes/game to Odom's 20.25 minutes/game, and they rocket up to 15.9 points and 13.5 rebounds per Odomgame. Holy production!
Part Two: The Stats You Won't
Here's where it gets interesting. You probably expected the monster rebounding numbers. But what about Love's scoring?He has 33 points through 42 minutes over the 4 games. His 8.3 points per game are nowhere near Kevin Durant's 18.8, and behind Chauncey Billups and Derrick Rose, tied for 4th best on the team with Rudy Gay.
However, Durant, Billups, Rose, and Gay have all played at least 62 minutes, far more than Love's 42. Given another 20 minutes scoring at his current rate, Love's per game average would increase to 12.2 points/game, moving him up to second place on the team.
But can he challenge Durant? Durant is Team USA's leading scorer and its leading minute-getter, with 103 minutes through 4 games. In his 25.8 minutes/game, Durant has scored 18.8 points per game. In 25.8 minutes/game at his current rates, Love would produce (drum roll please):
20.2 points/game, 17.2 rebounds/game
That's right, Kevin Love, in addition to his inhuman rebounding, is scoring more points on a per-minute basis than Kevin Durant and every other player on Team USA.
Conclusions
The obvious conclusion is that Coach K needs to play Kevin Love more. A lot more. Starting "FIBA C" Lamar Odom" has been utter trash by comparison. If no amount of demonstrated inferiority can cause Odom, the team's ostensible veteran leader, to lose his starting spot, he ought to be relegated to a figurehead position, much like Jason Kidd was in '08, when he started every game over both Chris Paul and Deron Williams but finished behind them both in minutes played and crunch time reps.
If Odom doesn't become a figurehead, perhaps it's Coach K who is. As much as people love to be trendy and make bold (stupid) predictions that some team other than Team USA will win Worlds, the reality is that this team, '08 Olympians or not, is far and away the best team in the field and should always have been considered the prohibitive favorite. Coach K can bring them to victory while still not maximizing his or the team's performance. If they win Gold with Odom continuing to play double the minutes of Love, that's exactly what he will have done.
As for what this means for the Wolves, I submit that we are still underestimating Mr. Love's capacity for stardom. Last year, on a crap team with few plays run for him, he still managed 17.7 points/36 minutes. What's the points per game threshold for a star big man, 20? Heck, Kevin Garnett never got higher than the 22.1 points/36 minutes he posted in his MVP year. Here Love is now, on a much better team, still without any plays being run for him, leading the team in points per minute.
How hard will it be for Love to become a star big man in the traditional 20/10 (read: 20/14) sense? Consider that:
- He's 21, and should improve naturally as all 21 year olds do.
- He's going to get more than last year's 28.6 minutes/game.
- He's going to have better and improving teammates than he has so far in his career.
- He could (gasp!) have more of the offense run through him.
All of those sources of improvement are really simple, if not automatic. In my opinion, the unrealistic view is to think Kevin Love won't eventually average 20 points per game.
Updates
Thanks to my CH posters for the following links. Looks like I won't need to calculate this stuff manually anymore.
http://www.in-the-game.org/?page_id=8651
http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=7294
http://www.usabasketball.com/mens/national/2010_MWC_USA_Stats.html
162 comments
|
2 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
A rebounding percentage just under 40%.
That’s unbelievable. Mind-blowing. I wonder if anyone has ever done that, even in spot time, over the course of an entire tournament.
The highest for-real percentages ever recorded in the NBA, even in very limited minutes, are all about Dennis Rodman’s individual seasons, and he topped out just under 30%.
I wish to goodness we could see Kevin Love play starting-level minutes and go crazy like this for the Wolves. It would just be great to watch. Entertaining. The nearest thing I can think of in terms of Wolves history is Michael Williams running out a long string of made free throws.
"As long as a man stands in his own way, everything seems to be in his way." RWE
ha ha ha
Ah, Michael Williams, pure excitement.
by princelyfrank on Sep 2, 2010 9:16 AM CDT up reply actions
You remember the days?
Yes, when Minnesota’s entire offense was Michael Williams putting his head down…. I feel like Archie Bunker sitting down with Edith at the piano, singin’ songs about that peaceful epoch.
(How Williams got a reputation for being “soft” is beyond me. He got his plantar fasciatis thing and everyone forgot that he’d spent a whole year here as Don Baylor taking pitches to the hip every at bat.)
"As long as a man stands in his own way, everything seems to be in his way." RWE
He made a surprising contribution in '98, too
He played in 25 games near the end of the season and averaged 15 mpg, 5 ppg, 2.3 rpg, 2.8 apg, and a 116 Offensive Rating in the first 4 games against Seattle before getting suspended for the 5th game for leaving the bench during a skirmish. Then he got traded as part of the deal for Bobby Jackson and Dean Garrett, played two games the next season, and that was it.
by pagingstanleyroberts on Sep 3, 2010 11:11 AM CDT up reply actions
"Mr, we could use a man like Herbert Hoover again"
Not.
What a great show though.
"Silence is golden but duct tape is silver." ---Anon.
I'm always a little weary of stat projections based on minutes.....
I honestly don’t think he will ever be 20/10 unless he gets those numbers in an Al Jeff situation: on a terrible offensive team that gives him ample opportunity to score. And frankly, that would mean another terrible year for us.
His numbers will be better than last year’s as long as he gets starters minutes, but I just don’t see him having a usage that would allow him to score 20. I don’t think his offense will ever be polished enough to warrant that type of usage, so I hope he sticks to working hard for his points on put-backs, open 3’s and the occasional iso play.
I get the argument that the team is better but it could end up hurting his scoring chances. If he gets the expected 36 minutes per game, I would be ecstatic if he averaged right around 17 ppg.
Agreed
He likely has more value cleaning up the broken down plays and facilitating other players scoring. I would much rather have Beasley and Wes getting 20 a game with open looks and lanes to the basket along with Love scoring a very efficient 15-17ppg. I’m excited about the new year, excited about Love performance over the summer, and in denial about this year PG situation.
by midlife crisis on Sep 2, 2010 9:00 AM CDT up reply actions
What has Love's overall defence been like?
Stats are stats and can be interpreted a number of ways. do you have any numbers which highlight opposition scoring when Odom is on the floor compared to when Love is on the floor. Perhaps coach K plays Odom more becasue he is a better overall defender? Just a thought.
Love's Defense was the reasoning behind his limited play in game 3.
He is still a defensive liability for several situations, also I like to think that he is used to coming in off the bench to be a spark plug for a team. I am not totally sure if his contributions will translate into a starting role with the same consistency, BUT I really hope the TWolves give him a shot to show us this year. A full year at Starter to answer this question once and for all.
by Timberwolf i.e. Albatross on Sep 2, 2010 8:26 AM CDT up reply actions
I think
this is what will make or break Love as a star – can he produce at this rate for 35 minutes a game or will he tire, and can he figure out how not to be an albatross on defense while he’s out there? Perhaps this is the reasoning for a guy like Darko or even Tolliver – Love’s so good at a lot of things but very clearly needs help with one or two things. So Darko’s role is to cover Love’s big butt on defense and block shots for him. That keeps Love on the floor and, as we all know by now, Love’s pretty good at doing positive things on the floor.
"Styx might be the mullet of bands."
Defense
Dean Oliver’s DRtg and Stop% are known to be imperfect metrics, but… before Monday’s game, Love led Team USA in both categories.
by hopps on Sep 2, 2010 9:54 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
That's a great list
I just did Hollinger’s Euro-Translator adjustment for Love’s FIBA stats (you know, because he’s playing in Europe). Granted it’s an extremely small sample size, but adjust to the NBA we get (all per 36 minutes):
16 ppg, 28.3 reb/g, 5.2 assists/g, .442 shooting, and a PER of 25.3.
Not bad, not bad at all.
"Styx might be the mullet of bands."
Update
Hey John Doe, great post. I have the updated and sortable full list here: http://www.in-the-game.org/?page_id=8651
I’m surprised by Coach K’s minute-management. Against Brazil Odom was too tired to run back at one point in the fourth quarter, he was lucky they stopped the ball and got it back to him for the easy layup. Played four guys +30 minutes (Durant 39), Iguodala 29. Considering how well Love is doing, that’s just a questionable decision.
by in-the-game on Sep 2, 2010 7:25 AM CDT reply actions 1 recs
I'm in favor of his limited minutes
I’m hoping for an injury free year from Love.
by midlife crisis on Sep 2, 2010 8:52 AM CDT up reply actions
Right!
From a selfish point of view, keep his usage low. We don’t want a knee problem or foot problem to emerge. He’s playing enough to learn, and I’ll bet he gets higher usage in the tough games to come.
This is a perfect summer season for Love, IMHO.
Wow thanks
That list has everything! Since the site bears your name, does that mean you maintain it and input the information? If so, bravo.
I’ll update the FanPost to include that info. In the meantime, everyone, click this link.
I think Love has played great, but it's a two-way game
I think Love does exceptionally well when matched up with people close to his size and athleticism. However, when he faces teams like Brazil (or your above average NBA 4), we see a lot of the same problems — he can’t defend and he still gets a lot of shots around the rim blocked.
I’m all for Love starting and getting starters minutes. But until he shows he can somehow slow (or at least play to a draw) some of the better 4s in the NBA, I don’t think that the picture is really that complete. FWIW, i thought this was a great take on Love:
I will say this
most NBA 4’s are going to have trouble with Splitter. I think at some point (and arguing this broadly, not directing it at you) the line of reasoning that goes “Player X isn’t that good because they can’t defend star players A, B, and C very well” is a flawed argument and simply a conversation stopper. Is Kevin Durant a bad player because he struggles to shut down Kobe? Is Dwight Howard a bad player because Big Al was able to put up some points on him?
To me the point is this – Kevin Love, as a ‘star’, is going to struggle against a few more of the hybrid and big 4’s than maybe you’d like, but in all fairness most NBA 4’s are going to struggle against the same guys. It’s a tactical weakness that you address the best you can (as in add two legit 7’ bigs with deceptive mobility to handle the Pau’s, Bynum’s, Duncan’s, and Oden’s of the world and some faster flibertygibbets like Beasley and Tolliver for the Rashards and Hedo types) and go from there. You could see even against Brazil that Love’s outside shot is a legit weapon, that a lot of these bigger guys like Pau or Splitter feel just as uncomfortable moving away from the basket defensively as Love does. Love can pull the trigger on his outside shot so fast that at some point length, height, and athleticism simply doesn’t matter – Love’s going to get the shot off no matter what.
I say we give him 35 minutes a night and find out what he can do. Certainly can’t be worse than last year – it’s pretty much all upside at this point.
"Styx might be the mullet of bands."
by biggity2bit on Sep 2, 2010 10:34 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
I say that love can match up well with about 25% of 4's in the nba.
people like Zack Randolph, Al Jefferson and maybe DMC are the types love can hold and not be embarrassed by. But players that are any more taller or athletic he will get abused by.
BS
Have you even LOOKED at the PF in the NBA?? Just for fun, lets look at a listing of PF from a fantasy BB game:
Nowitzky, Granger, P Gasol, Lee, Stoudemire, G Wallace, J Smith, Bosh, Boozer, Al Jeff, Horford, Bargnani, Duncan, Murphy, West, Nene, Gay, Randolph, Camby, Noah, Jamison, Aldredge, Blatche, Garnett, Millsap, Green, Frye, A Randolph, R Lewis, Scola, B Griffen, AK, Ty Thomas, Brand, Landry.
Where would you think Love fits onto this list?
Timberwolves - NBA champs 2013!
(used with permission - Wolf in MO)
by frankenhoops on Sep 2, 2010 12:14 PM CDT up reply actions
1st of all Granger G Wallace Gay are not PF's they play SF for their teams
1st of all Granger G Wallace Gay are not PF’s. They play SF for their teams. So from this list I can tell you have not looked at PF’s In the nba. 2nd He would get abused offensively by the follwoing: Nowitzky,P Gasol, Lee, Stoudemire,J Smith, Bosh, Boozer, Horford, Bargnani Nene Jamison Aldredge Blatche Garnett Green, Frye , R Lewis B Griffen Ty Thomas Landry,Splitter Jerebko. The guys that are SF’s but can play some four G Wallace AK Mello, Granger Lebron. Not to mention some guys that we have not even heard of. Remember last year Tolliver had a career day against Kevin love. Love is a better player than some of these guys on this list but all are too athletic or too tall for love to guard.
I think that is fair
A couple of those guys are really centers. Horford and Noah for sure. You could make a case that Stoudemire, Bosh, Al, Bargnani, Nene, and Camby are as well.
by Breaking Ankles on Sep 2, 2010 1:08 PM CDT up reply actions
Just opinion
He would get abused offensively by the follwoing:
You use the conditional tense to describe situations that have already happened. Love has actually played against most of those players. Show me evidence that he has already been abused by them. Like they say, there’s a reason they play the games.
You might wonder why a lot of your takes don’t gain any traction on this board. It’s likely because most posters seem to favor evidence-based information. I’m not saying that Love has bnever been abused by anyone on your list, but all the information is out there. And when you look at the work that John Doe did to collect numbers to state his case, you’ll get an idea about how the game can be played to convince others of your basic thesis. I know your a numbers guy, so have at it.
by dropstep on Sep 2, 2010 1:11 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
If I told this site which games Love got abused offensively by
People would come up with things like love did not guard that guy or they would use some defensive stat saying love is a good defender. people have made their minds up. I could show game tape, high lights and the Klove believers would not even trust their own eyes. But you are right some of these guys have not been used to take advantage of love guarding them. I don’t care about getting traction if I did I would say things like Love is better than Bosh, Mello or any other crazy thing that has been said about love.
by chuckd@79 on Sep 2, 2010 1:25 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Here's the thing
Dirk, Pau, Amare, Josh Smith, Bosh, and Boozer just to begin with are going to be tough for anybody to guard. What does this tell us about how good Love is or isn’t? Let’s switch it around for second and look at it this way – which of those players is going to abuse Amare offensively? Hmmm… Dirk, Pau, Josh Smith should pose a challenge, Bosh, Boozer, Al Jeff, probably Horford and Bargnani. Yup, Nene, Jamison, Blatche, KG, Frye, Griffen, and Splitter too will all also pose significant challenges to Amare defensively. Good, glad we proved Amare’s a schlep.
For me this comes down to one thing – if you know a player’s weaknesses and strengths, then what are you going to do about it? How about playing, for example, Amare with Robin Lopez – a fierce defender and rebounder? Or how about pairing Love with a legit 7’ shot blocking center, a guy who will make the leapers and driving type PFs think twice about going hard to the rim.
Here’s another flip side way to view it – out of all those great PFs, who is going to be challenged by what Love can do? Is Dirk stong enough? Pau matches up well, but can he handle Love’s outside shot? If Love decides to play a power game against Josh Smith, can Smoove handle it? If, as is most likely the case, the net +/- on most of these matchups is around zero, the question is whether with help defense from Darko Love’s contributions offensively (passing, outside shot, etc) will tilt the scales slightly in our favor.
"Styx might be the mullet of bands."
Yes
I guess I was looking at it as a strict head to head match-up to compare PF. Looking at it in a PF/C aggregate is fine but it doesn’t really compare Kevin to other PFs which I think chuckd@79 was talking about. If you rank Love’s defense compared to the list in general, I would say he toward the bottom of the PF list, whereas I think he is toward the top on overall offense if you think in terms of offensive potential for the team – points, rebounds, passing, assists, etc. He is a very talented player but like all of us he has he weaknesses as well. I would agree with the previous Kevin PF post that he is probably in the 9 to 18 best PF range based on observation. this is not to say that Darko/Love would be competitive against many other front courts – but I think we would all rather have a / guy like KG to give you an advantage not cover weaknesses.
by Breaking Ankles on Sep 2, 2010 1:57 PM CDT up reply actions
Exactly
9-18 is a good range, not the bottom 25 percent of the league as Mr (I’m right & you’re wrong) ChuckD states at the beginning of this thread. Love may not be the best PF to ever play the game, but he is not anywhere near the worst either.
Timberwolves - NBA champs 2013!
(used with permission - Wolf in MO)
by frankenhoops on Sep 3, 2010 11:57 AM CDT up reply actions
Let's take a quick look
Last December, right after Love came back from injury and once he got inserted in the starting lineup. In games he played against plyers on your list, let’s look at the opponent point totals and make sure Love played enough minutes to ensure that he played sufficiently against the opposing starting PF.
12/11 (first as starter) (33 min) Gasol 17 pts
12/14 (35 min) Boozer 16 pts
12/20 (28 min) KG 10 pts
12/22 (34 min) Josh Smith 10 pts
12/26 (35 min) AJamison 20 pts
12/30 (38 min) Boozer 16 pts (5 of 15)
I can see no evidence that Love got abused. The players you mention are consistent scorers. None are getting more than their average output vs. the Wolves. Since you want to believe that Love gets abused, you can always find a play or highlight clip that reinforces your own bias. The fact is that he does not automatically get owned by players who are either taller or more athletic. You will never look at the end result of Love’s productivity because you will focus on the process.
If I told this site which games Love got abused offensively by People would come up with things like love did not guard that guy or they would use some defensive stat saying love is a good defender.No, you’re just lazy. Make an actual case for your arguments once in a while.
by dropstep on Sep 2, 2010 1:44 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
To add to this
Everybody has a night or three per season where they get lit up (sometimes because your off, more often because the other guy is in the zone). I’m sure you could look and find someone that put up 25 on KG over the course of a season.
He had a good stretch in there
A couple of other things that stand out in the stats to me in those games – Gasol grabbed 20 rebounds, added 7 assists, and shot .571 – KG shot .800 and played 27.5 min in a blow out – Smith shot .833 and played 20 minutes in a blow out. Boozer struggled in that 12/30 game as you indicted shooting .333.
by Breaking Ankles on Sep 2, 2010 2:21 PM CDT up reply actions
Yeah,
cause he completely proved your point that these guys abused Love when they had the chance.
Smith and KG
would have scored more points if the games were not a blowouts. and I think Gasol was returning from injury.
Smith had 5 fouls
it was not the blowout that kept him on the bench. KG played 28.5 minutes. He averaged 29.9 for the season. So, he scored below his per game average while playing his normal number of minutes. Gasol had been back for about a month and played 38 minutes. Look things up every once in a while.
Disagree
Tim, I love that you’re fighting the fight for the unpopular opinions, but dropstep’s reply was warranted. Not that meta-discussions are particularly useful, but chuckd keeps asserting things to fit his mold WITHOUT checking to see if his assertions are true, whereas dropstep, biggity2bit, etc, are asserting things to fit their mold while verifying that their assertions are based in actual facts.
chuckd should, in fact, look things up before hitting that “Post” button, if he intends to be taken seriously.
Next thing you know, they'll take my thoughts away.
To be honest
I rather enjoy a number of chuckd’s posts/comments. May not be backed up or argued the best, but I find that some of them aren’t wrong either.
Be that as it may, the fact what I take from the number of blowouts these guys put up their usual or even subpar scoring numbers against Love is that, geez, just how bad was the rest of the team if these lead horses aren’t doing the damage? That’s where again this season will be interesting. Wes, Martell, Beasley, Brewer – those guys are going to make a huge difference and completely change the dynamic of how teams play us and try to score against us. In other words, we’ll get to see just how good a defender (or bad) Love is when guys like Pau and Boozer are trying their hardest to score against Love because their team needs the points.
"Styx might be the mullet of bands."
Yeah
by no means was I trying to provide a complete picture of any of those games, and it’s all small sample size. To be completely fair, I think Love had it a bit easy because most games we were blown apart by the littel guuys and the 3 pt shooters. The game plan was probably not, “Let’s attack in the post” vs. the wolves. Those rebounds for Gasol stood out, as did Love’s poor shooting game vs. the Lakers, but the guy did grab 19 boards against the toughest front court in the league.
Well it should be easier to see how he stacks up this year
He’ll get more playing time and i am really looking forward to watching him develop!
by Breaking Ankles on Sep 2, 2010 2:49 PM CDT up reply actions
Curious
How would you do that? Are head-to-head stats easily available or would you make some assumptions and look at the players performance against the entire team?
by Breaking Ankles on Sep 2, 2010 1:41 PM CDT up reply actions
No head to head stats are not easily available
which is why I’m not going to bother. But I have dug into play by play game data and game flow data to figure these things out in the past. It is worth it for a game or two, but not to compare Love against 75% of the league’s PFs. So, as above, just lokoing for evidence that someone on the elite PF list went hog wild in games when Love was playing big minutes against the first unit.
It usually takes young players a few years
to get their sea legs under them on defense. I think Love understands now that using his body to play stout positional defense and sheer hustle will be how he can have an impact on the defensive end. I definitely could see him becoming part of an elite 5-man defensive unit. However, he needs length and ranginess on the wings and at Center to compliment his strengths of positioning and defensive rebounding. I think on the wings we’re making progress: Brewer, W. Johnson, and Martell Webster all appear to have the type of athleticism, length, and desire to cover a lot of ground defensively. I still think Darko is the guy that ultimately makes or breaks our defense next season. He certainly has the size and physical agility, but I’m still not sold on his commitment level.
by Rascal Flatts on Sep 2, 2010 11:48 AM CDT up reply actions
I agree with this
That is why If we role with love starting then we need Johnson and Webster to play with him. Those two can help mask love’s deficiency on defense. And Have B-Easy come off the bench when we need points.
Does anyone know what USG% is?
Kevin Love ranks 12th in USG% at the World Championship, behind players such as Andriuskevicius, Scola, and Haddadi and leads the US team in it.
From Basketball-Reference
Usage Percentage (available since the 1977-78 season in the NBA); the formula is 100 * ((FGA + 0.44 * FTA + TOV) * (Tm MP / 5)) / (MP * (Tm FGA + 0.44 * Tm FTA + Tm TOV)). Usage percentage is an estimate of the percentage of team plays used by a player while he was on the floor.
Usage is basically a metric for identifying how much of a focal point player X is in the offense… The fact that Love has the highest usage on the team is kind of insane, given that it is the metric most often assumed that there is a large trade-off between efficiency and usage.
It needs to be said repeatedly that we are looking at a really small sample size… but in the sample Love has not just performed really good… He has been the best player on team USA, the best player in the tournament, and about as good as a player can possibly be.
From watching the game
I will also say that I think Love’s usage rate is skewed a bit because he’s playing so few minutes and it seems like everytime he’s in for 4-5 minutes he gets 3-4 shots off that are misses of his teammates or he gets a pass, looks to pass it to someone who’s not cutting or is already guarded and ends up taking the shot himself because no one has stepped out to guard him. In other words he’s not been the focus of the Team USA offensively at all but has been the uber-opportunistic safety valve for busted plays. What is also unique is that Love functions as said safety valve within the flow of the game. What I mean by this is that it’s never: play breaks down, shot clock gets low, give the ball to Kobe/Roy/whoever and let them create as the safety valve. It’s more: defenders are running to get back, adjusting and switching as guys are cutting. The ball is getting swung around, or the PG drives in and lays it off to Love who then looks to see what he should do. In a split second he ascertains (correctly, more often than not, but sometimes he makes mistakes too) whether there’s a good option or not (i,e. – is the play ‘busted’ or not, are his guys cutting where they should or did someone get boxed out or not fight through a screen hard enough, etc) to continue the play and if not sees if he can simply take the shot himself. In this tournament, anyways, it seems as though the defense is always a half second late in reacting to his reads and decision making and so it seems like he’s always getting great looks at the basket. Kevin Love will never be a 4 seconds left on the shot clock, one on one scoring guy, but if Rambis can get this team constantly running and always in motion then there might not be any better player than Love for fixing/capitalizing on ‘breakdowns’ in real time. That is how (if ever) he will become a 20 ppg scorer – realtime opportunistic decision making and subsequent free throws.
"Styx might be the mullet of bands."
by biggity2bit on Sep 2, 2010 10:55 AM CDT up reply actions 2 recs
Perfect explanation.
He is being “used” a lot in his minutes, but his high usage is being obtained in a manner completely different from how most high usage players use possessions. Little if anything is being planned or run for him, but through his incredibly diverse skill set, there is constantly something available for him to do that results in points for Team USA.
In basketball, as with most things in life, the result is all that matters. Even though Love’s play hasn’t looked like that of a superstar, the end result of everything he’s doing out there is superstar production.
so would you equate Love
to an offensive Shane Battier? I would imagine if defense had as many tracking data points that man would put up some serious stats in an unorthodox manner.
No one is getting Rubio's rights unless they pry them from our cold dead fingers.
by TheEvilProfessor on Sep 3, 2010 10:52 AM CDT up reply actions
Battier is such an interesting figure for stats wonks.
The general sense I get is that Daryl Morey based his decision to trade for Battier in large part on the “more data tracking points” approach you mention.
"I think often what you’ll find when you’re getting negative comments (on statistics), they’re basing it on what they’re used to being available, which is a regular box score. And there’s no question that anything in the box score is highly misleading. So if you’re basing your opinions on that – the box scores that they hand out at the games – you’re going to have an appropriate negative opinion of what you can understand using analytics. I would even have a negative opinion of [statistical analysis] if that’s all I’d ever seen."
Meanwhile Dave “I’ve cast myself as Galileo, so you all must be the Pope (and I’m sneering at your pointy cap)” Berri went out of his way to cut down comments about that made by Morey, and wrote an essay about how you really could see Battier’s worth in the regular box scores if you were just Econ enough about it.
Love definitely has some similar mojo going on with the Wages of Wins folks….
"As long as a man stands in his own way, everything seems to be in his way." RWE
people often confuse
advanced stats with detailed statistics. One makes a lot of assumptions, while the other is just a crapload of details that quantify what you are seeing to get a very specific idea of what you are seeing.
There are two ways to use stats to view the game. 1. Use advanced stats metrics to identify superior players and design ideal lineups using these metrics to reach some kind of individual benchmark for team needs (scoring efficiency, rebounding, ast/to, etc.). 2. Manually break down each players games to find players that are either very good in certain areas of a desired offensive/defensive system and create a profile for what you need from starters and role players and then start weeding out who is and isn’t available to construct a roster capable of doing very specific things.
I prefer the latter approach, but it takes way too much time for the casual fan. So we all look at PER, Win Shares, etc to identify the “best” players. We forget that situation is one of the most important drivers of success in the NBA. Almost even more than overall skill.
No one is getting Rubio's rights unless they pry them from our cold dead fingers.
by TheEvilProfessor on Sep 5, 2010 9:59 AM CDT up reply actions
I thought about writing a second FanPost distinguishing your two categories.
The real use of any number is that it allows you to ask interesting questions about the game and not get tangled in your own assumptions trying to answer them. When we’re talking about Win Shares (or whatever) as a topic unto itself – “Is this really the best measure of player worth?” – I think we’ve lost a big share of “ask interesting questions” and the debates become about those assumptions we were trying to avoid.
As a means to an end, though, they’re handy. If you’re wanting to know how well people recover from X surgery, using PER as the dependent variable seems fine to me. That’s a worthwhile thing to be asking about, and some overall measure seems like a decent choice to get a thumbnail sense of “How well did he recover?”
(In any case I’d so much rather ask interesting stuff that way than fill boards like Canis with “Kobe is SO much better’n LeBron, he’s teh bomb!” Which is kind of where you are if you dispense with any tools at all.)
"As long as a man stands in his own way, everything seems to be in his way." RWE
(We need to glom "small area" into that somewhere.)
"As long as a man stands in his own way, everything seems to be in his way." RWE
This is why people here should not look at stats and especially advanced in a vacuum
They need to watch he games. This is the only way to analyze a player potential and abilities.
every stat needs a context
to be truly useful. With a player like Love who puts up some unbelievable stats, it does cause people to reassess his game to see how that happens. By doing so you see that he is extremely effective in the cracks of the game. I have no idea how he does it, but I can’t recall a player off the top of my head who is better at that than he is.
Fact is that Love isn’t a worldclass finisher, scorer or defender, but he does everything else very well and he is always around the ball and bangs. He makes NBA players work hard and I don’t think most are used to it or have the inclination to do so. He is a ++ instinctive player and at the opposite spectrum of the way – hollins.
No one is getting Rubio's rights unless they pry them from our cold dead fingers.
by TheEvilProfessor on Sep 2, 2010 11:44 AM CDT up reply actions
I've watched every game....
I’m not sure what your point is.
We both watch games and clearly come to different conclusions… doesn’t speak well of your subjective observation based approach to analysis and projection.
MY point is don't just look at the numbers you like then say
That player is next Larry Bird
I didn't say that...
I looked at the numbers and said WARNING!! SMALL SAMPLE SIZE…. and then noted how if (and it is likely never to happen) those same numbers were to continue for an extended period of time, Love would be a super-star.
There's something seriously wrong with you
You get angry with people for disagreeing with your opinions, and then you say they don’t watch the games. Honestly, what’s your problem, what are you angry at? When your argument is “you don’t watch games” it makes your opinions seem even more baseless. And then you have the audacity to say other sites believe your opinion, so we should too. What are you like 10? I know you are but what am I!!!! Your a joke dude.
by NorthernLights666 on Sep 2, 2010 1:39 PM CDT up reply actions
Wow, talk about a joke. How about you take your attacks elsewhere?
Chuck makes some decent points that happen to disagree with the majority of posters on this board. Since that makes it about 100-on-1, its easy to gang up on him and take shots. It can get frustrating – believe me, I know.
But you’re just insulting and small with a post like this. How about you come back when you get some manners?
by TimAllen on Sep 2, 2010 1:42 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Seriously?
His only argument when confronted over his lack of evidence supporting his opinions are “you don’t watch games”, what’s with that? You agree with that? I’m not trying to attack him, I’m just trying to understand whether or not he’s joking, or if this is really his argument. Way to go on YOUR manners by cutting me down too. Real big of you bro.
by NorthernLights666 on Sep 2, 2010 1:53 PM CDT up reply actions
You're not trying to attack him?
I’d hate to see what you would write if you were trying to attack him. You called him a ‘joke’ and said something is ‘seriously wrong with him’.
by TimAllen on Sep 2, 2010 1:58 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Because his only agrument when confronted over his lack of evidence is
“You don’t watch Games”. Is it not rational to ask what is wrong with him that he’d have to use that excuse. If he were a child I could understand, but as far as I know, he is not. Why are you co-signing for him? Is that your normal reasoning as well when your opinions have been deemed incorrect, “you don’t watch games”? Would you at least agree that “you don’t watch games” is one of the poorest excuses you could use in trying to defend your opinions regarding basketball? We wouldn’t be here if we didn’t watch the games. I’m not saying all of what he says is a joke, because it is not, but when confronted over his lack of evidence he always gives that excuse, it’s getting tiring and is very childish. Would you rather have us all be non-confrontational, the Minnesota way?
by NorthernLights666 on Sep 2, 2010 2:06 PM CDT up reply actions
I'd rather you just stick to your substantive arguments
and leave the name calling for other boards. That’s all I’m saying.
by TimAllen on Sep 2, 2010 2:08 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
I understand
and I’m sorry I offended you, but the “you don’t watch games” excuse is getting really old and is extremely childish.
by NorthernLights666 on Sep 2, 2010 2:11 PM CDT up reply actions
Agreed
It’s one of those threads where I agree with the substance of what NL666 is saying, but there’s a better way to go about it. chuck doesn’t always show the most (or even sometimes any at all) respect in his arguments either, but the worst response is to attack or demean. It makes further conversation difficult and distracts from the points at hand.
It's just so "out there"
that I have to question the validity of it, whether it’s a cry for attention or an actual argument. Logically it has to be the first, this I have a problem with, nobody wants to deal with that shit and I have to call him out on it. Call me an asshole, but at least I’m not ignoring the problem.
by NorthernLights666 on Sep 5, 2010 1:15 PM CDT up reply actions
The standard of civility here is so one-sided as to be laughable.
ChuckD in this same thread:
I could Bring facts or whatever
It would not matter. some People on this site are like fanatic Muslims when it comes to love. so me trying to convince these people would be like Bush converting Bin laden to Christianity.
Tell me again how I’m meant to be especially polite so as to have “further conversation” with that. Leave alone his completely missing the point about the usage stat, which Vjl110 had just patiently explained; chuck’s taking roundhouse punches involving religion, using it as an insult.
A huge majority of the responses to chuck essentially do tell him to “Bring facts or whatever,” too – and then those people get chided for it, because it’s so so hurtful for someone to say provocative things like “Look things up every once in a while.”
I just almost missed the really interesting point – that Kevin Love soaks up possessions when he’s on the floor for team USA, to an extent Kevin Durant doesn’t – because of the white noise provided by chuck. Vjl110’s post, in response to a direct question about what USG% meant, could have gone in a much more interesting direction than another chuckd tangent. We should be asking if we can find other players who legitimately do this “high usage in very tight PT” thing but who can’t (or can) start and have the same results, for example.
Same poster:
you wearing panties is a verbal quip
about how you are reacting to something I wrote about love. It is similar to how females act when you talk about their boyfriends….
Oh please, TimAllen, protect us from the acid sting of this childish poster with the half-drunk-guy-shouting-over-my-shoulder-from-the-row-behind-me manner!…. But wait, curiously, you’re defending him because we say things like
“I’m pretty sure I haven’t seen chuck make a single good point… ever. And more importantly, he often reiterates the same bad, substance-free points over and over and over…. There is a way to go against the grain and deserve respect, and then there is chuck.”
in response. How could anyone be so callous as to commit such words to a Web basketball board?? Oh fie!
by feral on Sep 6, 2010 9:05 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Thank you, feral, for once again
showing this board the error of its ways. If I didn’t have you to turn to for my moral tutelage, I would be lost.
Seriously, Tim?
Aren’t you the guy rooting through all the posts to find instances of unnecessary meanness?
by dropstep on Sep 7, 2010 10:39 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Hah, yeah, I rooted through "all the posts"
which really meant that I was defending one person who kept getting assailed by feral and a bunch of other people for not providing statistical data and links to basketball-reference.com in his arguments about Kevin Love. I didn’t think it was quite fair that he was having to deal with so many other posters attacking his character like that.
Actually
I’ve just traveled back in time from the year 2012 when the Wolves are the NBA champions but it’s all for naught as the earth is being sucked into a black hole that was created in the summer of 2010 by the constant sniping and strife in these comment threads.
No autopsy, no foul.
by TMiss on Sep 7, 2010 12:15 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
I have seen YOU make numerous good points that go against the grain...
I’m pretty sure I haven’t seen chuck make a single good point… ever. And more importantly, he often reiterates the same bad, substance-free points over and over and over….
There is a way to go against the grain and deserve respect, and then there is chuck.
Everyone deserves a certain measure of respect
regardless of the quality of argument. I just think even if chuck was saying “Brian Cardinal should start at point guard”, he doesn’t deserve to get called a “joke”.
by TimAllen on Sep 2, 2010 2:03 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Right, but calling the argument a joke
and calling the person a joke are two very different things, and that’s where I think the problem comes in.
by TimAllen on Sep 2, 2010 2:07 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Using the excuse "You don't watch games" when defending your opinions
makes you a joke, would you not agree with that?
by NorthernLights666 on Sep 2, 2010 2:08 PM CDT up reply actions
On a Timberwolves site
where I’d bet most watch the games? It is not? Wow. Well, everybody needs somebody in their corner, you are a saint my friend.
by NorthernLights666 on Sep 2, 2010 2:13 PM CDT up reply actions
you are exaggerating when I say "You don't watch games"
I never said Just Watch the games. I say this in reference to stats. People need to understand the context of how a player gets his stats. Also I say watch the games for what kind of players a team needs. If they want to be a running or defensive team there are thousands of hours of tape to show which type of player fits a particular scheme
I never said you use the excuse "Just watch Games"
it’s when you use the excuse “You don’t watch games” to back up your opinions. You use that excuse every time you get backed into a corner and can’t explain your opinions thoroughly enough. How do you expect people to take you seriously when that’s your reasoning?
by NorthernLights666 on Sep 2, 2010 2:31 PM CDT up reply actions
If I say you need athletic players in order to have a ruining team
There is no stat that can tell you this. The best you can do is watch the games to find out what types of players you need in order to have a running team.
I'm not trying to start an argument with you or anyone(though I'm sure this will).
Nor am I trying to take up for NorthernLights but Chuck’s arguments center around Love being too fat, too slow, players like Beasley are better because they are more athletic, and that Love is best in a sixth man role but he brings nothing to a debate regarding this other than insults and “you don’t watch games.” He brings nothing more than opinions and an article or two from a random writer and calls them facts.
Personally, I don’t care what he believes about Love but at least bring facts/stats or anything to the table for that matter other than your opinion and arguing that he’s right while providing no proof whatsoever.
Actually watching the game is alright in my book
However my complaint is the only game example ever cited is the one where Toliver lit Love up. I could cite the one game where Love held Boozer to 5/15 shooting and claim he is a world class defender because of what he did to a guy with a good offensive game. Clearly neither sample size is large enough to draw a reasonable conclusion. Beyond that one sample all I’ve seen is “Love is fat”, “Love is unathletic”. My problem is that basketball is also a game of skill and lack of world class athleticism doesn’t preclude being a good player (note that I did not stay all-star, game-changer or anything of that ilk).
Right I have never said he is a bad player
People tend to gloss over this fact. I say he is good player but not for what the wolves want to do. If we changed and went to a half court game I would have no problems with love starting.
Thanks for the clarification
The reason I like Love starting is because Darko is a bad rebounder and you need a world class rebounder in order to make up for that. It’s great to be able to run, but if you can’t get the ball w/o the opponent scoring, you can’t start the break (another place where Loves outlet passes shine). Sure 4 runners is better than 3, but I’ll take a chance to run (i.e. a board) over another athlete. Plus I think Love is a good candidate to trail the play and get open 3s if our runners don’t take it to the hoop.
I could Bring facts or whatever
It would not matter. some People on this site are like fanatic Muslims when it comes to love. so me trying to convince these people would be like Bush converting Bin laden to Christianity.
Good example
Because I think your acceptance of Love’s skill set and potential in the NBA is very much in line with Bush’s accceptance of the Islamic faith. And you do spend quite a bit of time prosletyzing to the heretics.
So your excuse for not bringing forth facts is basically what you do when someone brings forth facts?
People constantly bring forth stats and all you do is dismiss them if they say that Love is an above average, who should be starting over any of the bigs on the current roster, or that he was the team’s best player last season.
I never say love is bad player. far from it
I just say for a team that wants to RUN one of your main players should be able to run. That is it. Plain in simple. For our team he should come off the bench when B-easy and Darko cant get the rebounds. Or if we start love then Johnson has to start and love has to get all the rebounds in order for him to justify him starting
Sorry
but I did watch the preliminary games in the FIBA tourney and I think that Love fits in very well with a running team. He rebounds well, passed out well, even got a dunk in transition. Plus that touch pass on Iguldola’s (?) dunk was spectacular. As far as I’m concerned, he is better fit for the run than half court game, where more of his defensive flaws might be exposed.
Timberwolves - NBA champs 2013!
(used with permission - Wolf in MO)
Plus if we did not try to be a running team
Love should start no question.
That playa is the next Larry Bird!!!
I’m sorry, what?
For your information a lot of people outside of Hoopus think I am spot on
When It comes to what Klove is right now.
http://www.awolfamongwolves.com/?p=176
That is really great....
I’m glad you have added other people’s baseless observations to your argumentative repertoire, along with chuckd@79’s absurd subjective observations.
You're really going to call Ben Polk's substantive article on Love
a baseless observation? How do you justify that?
My problem with the article
is this concluding paragraph:
Kevin Love, in other words, is a role player. A dude with the potential to be even more forcefully, life-affirmingly entertaining and effective than the other great glue guys (Varejao, Battier, Birdman and their ilk) but because of those limitations, those holes in his game, a role player nonetheless. This leaves us wondering: Wes Johnson, Michael Beasley, how good are you really gonna be?
By this standard only Pau/Garnet/Duncan are legit PFs and everyone else is a role player. Amare’ and Al Jefferson are not because just about anyone can abuse them on D (Amare’ also doesn’t rebound well). In other words anyone who has even one hole in their game is just a role-player, and in the NBA this simply isn’t true. Someone else gave Nash as an example and that is apt. Most 5s in the NBA don’t score in huge quantities often (younger Shaq, Yao, Dwight etc. being exceptions) they’re mostly out there to protect the rim, rebound and the occasional easy basket off a pick-n-roll or when the D breaks down; Since they don’t create and their main job is defensive are they just role-players?
In all honesty everyone has a role to play and that makes them all role players, however that term has a lot of derision attached to it (player is just not very good by NBA standards and that simply doesn’t apply to Love) and thus I argue because I dislike it.
The reason I think Love is not a ‘role’ player is because he would start at the 4 on 2/3 of the teams in the NBA (a team with Pao, Bosh etc. being exceptions) and his job will be to rebound, bang, hold position on D, pass, move w/o the ball and hit open shots from 5’ out to beyond the 3 pt. arc. His job does not include dribbling/shot creation (except off of rebounds) , leading the fast break, protecting the rim and help defense (he’s expected to try, but I’m expecting our 5 to be the primary man doing those things). Unless you have a better 4 (and they’re rare) or you have the skills well-covered this is a man most teams would try to sign if he were a free agent. He’s probably not more than a fringe-all star but he’s no ‘role-player’.
Sure, I'm not suggesting there aren't legitimate areas
to question in the article. Ben Polk isn’t some sort of unquestionable authority on all things NBA. But the guy is a quality blogger who takes time to formulate arguments and puts a lot of work into his posts. He’s not just some dude saying “Love sucks” on a message board.
So, regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the article’s main point, it has to go beyond getting called a “baseless observation”, doesn’t it?
"baseless observations" was an over-strong term...
There were some aspects of the article that I really didn’t like. In particular, how he only uses objective statistics to setup how good Love has been, then none to support his strange hypothesis that Love has demonstrated himself as a mere “role-player” in this tournament.
(BTW, ditto to everything zebano said)
Polk clearly thinks things through, and makes a serious argument, but he still relied on his own subjective interpretation of things to reach the conclusion that Love has shown that he is best used as a role player in this tourney.
Just a question ...
Imagine you’re forming your own USA national team from the players already ON today’s team, who gets picked first? Second? Third? etc. Where do you think Love would go in that pecking order? I sincerely doubt he would be in the first five.
Has Rose really been that impressive?
Granted, I haven’t watched all the games, and he has used his athleticism well, but I am pretty furstrated that no one, especially on the starting 5, seems to know how to run a basic offense. Fair or not, I put a lot of that on Rose. I’m not digging him in this tourney.
I think Rose has some serious BBIQ defficiencies...
I have a hard time imagining him as an upper-level player in the NBA. Honestly I have a hard time thinking of a “good” player whose game I dislike more.
The problem with him on this FIBA team is that he doesn’t offer anything unique. We have a ton of guys that can create for themselves. Rose should be able to do that really well against Euro-athletes, but it just doesn’t seem to help as much as it would if he was the only Iso option.
Agreed with the redundancy issue
I mean, how many athletic guys that can’t shoot do we need? Westbrook, Rose, Iguodala, and Gay all fit that profile.
As far as the best TEAM, I’d go:
Rose
Gordon
Durant
Love
Chandler
To me that offers a dominant combination of size, shooting, and slashing.
by Rascal Flatts on Sep 2, 2010 3:17 PM CDT up reply actions
I’d switch him out for Iggy or Odom. Chandler needs seriously limited minutes on account of the sucking so far, but I agree with the general idea of actually playing 2 bigs at once from time to time. It hasn’t always been necessary, and the US has actually been killing teams on the glass with frequency (a concern of both Coach K’s and mine that seems pretty silly against most teams, but might be a real problem against big, talented teams), but I don’t see why the team couldn’t run with 2 bigs for at least 15 mintues per game.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
Understood
I guess I like the idea of really going big and Love and Chandler are pretty much it. I’d bring Odom in off the bench early and slide Love to Center with Odom at PF. Has Chandler really been that bad? I still see his length as an important component to a complete squad.
by Rascal Flatts on Sep 2, 2010 4:10 PM CDT up reply actions
That's three PGs in the first 5 picks
Funny how that works out. Maybe it’s a Minnesota thing.
If I am makings a starting 5...
Westbrook
Gordon
Durant
Odom
Love
If picking “best FIBA player” in order…
Durant
Love
Curry
Westbrook
Rose
I hesitate to put Love that high
only because I think Love has been allowed to shine so much because other players draw the attention of the other team. Love is opportunistic with rebounds, loose balls, etc. He’s hit some good shots. And of course, it takes a lot of talent to do that. But he’s allowed to do that because he’s not a focal point of the offense and because teams have to guard Durant, Westbrook, Rose, etc., so closely.
Tim don't say this
It sounds like you actually watch the games instead of looking at somebody’s stats in a projected 36 min
But doesn't that make him a logical pick
I mean the constraints are picking among the Team USA guys, who all have the ability to draw attention, and you have one guy who seems to unquely take advantage of that. Doesn’t it make that one guy more valuable than most of the interchangeable parts. It’s not like picking in the NBA draft where if you don’t pick Curry you’re going to get Flynn. Oops, too soon?
Not really.
I mean, take the Miami Heat this season as a comparison. I’m assuming that Mike Miller is going to look very good this season. I think he’ll be one of the leaders in 3PT makes and probably 3PT%. But as Minnesota fans know, the biggest reason why Miller’s production will (likely) increase is because he has Wade/James/Bosh to draw in that defensive attention. Just because Miller takes advantage of that attention, does not mean that he is more valuable than the three guys who drew the attention to begin with.
different situation
My point is that you’re taking 5 players off Team USA. You want to make sure Durant is on the team. After that, you might want to make sure Love is on the team, because the differences between getting any of the other players is not as significant, even if they are “better” than Kevin, because he will be unique in bringing a specific talent to the mix. That’s my logic. It does not apply to filling out the Magic roster from any number of available free agents. It applies specifically to whther it matters if you are pairing Durant and Love with Gay, Granger or Iggy, Curry or Gordon, Rose, westbrook or Billups.
Sort of like a BPA vs. fit argument...
I hear what you’re saying though. It’s a valid argument. But for me, I just go back to my Miller argument, even though the situation is a little different, because I see a lot of similiarty. James and Wade have very similar skill sets, whereas Miller brings a specific talent to the mix, but I’d still choose both of them over Miller.
Love has also opened up the game for other players
I think NBA playbook as the video on this but
from watching the games I’ve seen him be boxed out by at least 2 guys and allow his teammate to get a dunk.
I’ve seen him move towards the 3pt line and open up the lane for the guards.
Tyson Chandler does neither of those things. Love makes the game easier for his teammates and yes, they also make the game easier for him.
I would drive 10 miles to hear fucktwats sing.
My pick, positionally
PG Derek Rose
SG Russel Westbrook
SF Kevin Durant
PF Kevin Love
C Lamar Odom
Next thing you know, they'll take my thoughts away.
I mostly agree
However I feel that Westbrook is the better true PG and Rose should play the SG spot.
I don't have a strong disagreement...
but how can you put two non-shooters at the 1 and 2 and leave Curry and Gordon on the board. The redundancy between Rose and Westbrook is nearly complete on offense (although Westbrook does the passing I guess), and you don’t gain much if anything on D with Rose over Curry.
Rose is way better defensive player than Curry
That is why he starts
Neither one is a shut down guy. Rose is mediocre at best, and still better than Curry, but I just don’t trust Rose on D enough to call him way better than anyone besides Jamal Crawford.
I’d leave Rose in there, but replace Westbrook with Curry or Gordon.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
Coach K does seem to think he's improving
“I thought he had a great week,” Mike Krzyzewski said. “I love Derrick. I thought he had an incredible performance in the scrimmage on Saturday, and defensively I thought he took it up a notch. Derrick pressured the ball very well.”
I never know what I’m going to get out of Rose defensively. Some times he’s pretty good, sometimes he just doesn’t show up. Probably an effort thing more than anything, so hopefully he gets that intensity up for a full year in the NBA. He’s a great talent and it’d be nice to see him up it all together. Great player to watch.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
Rose versus Curry...
is a little bit like deciding between a young Shaq and a young Duncan. One of them is a physical beast for his position. The other is incredibly skilled. You’d do well to have either guy, but when projecting into the future, you’d probably feel safer with the physical freak. At least that’s my take on those two.
Curry has completely failed to impress me
in the tournament. Not that he wasn’t great last year in the NBA, mind you.
But the question was about building a USA National team, presumably to play in FIBA. Curry hasn’t been shooting great, has been very turnover prone, and doesn’t seem to have much hustle so far in the tourney.
Westbrook, meanwhile, has been crucial. His ability to ignore defenses and just get to the rim has been outstanding.
I’d be open to swapping Rose out for Eric Gordon — his play has been reliable, his shooting has been very good, and he’s not likely to turn the ball over or lose his man on D. But Curry hasn’t shown me much.
Next thing you know, they'll take my thoughts away.
Gordon has outplayed Curry so far, but with so few games, I wonder if it was just a bad run of luck for him or if he’s just not suited for the FIBA game. Either way, no objection to someone taking Gordon over Curry, just stickin’ up for my guy. I’m excited to see him in a Warriors uniform playing well, even if the USA across his chest hasn’t done him much good.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
My order
1) Durant – He’s the only guy consistently creating efficient offense against set defense. The team is dynamite off steals, in transition, any time the defense is scrambling, but against a set defense, they’ve been decidedly average. None of the big men have post games. Rose, Westbrook, and Chauncey, Curry have been some combination of inefficient, turnover prone, and inconsistent. Iguodala, Gay, Granger, and Gordon aren’t really create-their-own shot types in the sense that we’d need. That leaves Durant as the lynchpin.
2) Love- He’s the only good big man on the team, and far more productive than anyone else. The rest of the guys are fairly interchangable, but the dropoff from Love to anyone else is massive. The team would be much worse without him.
3) Gordon – The most successful spot-up shooter in limited sample size, and his defense has been solid too.
4) Any of Rose, Westbrook, Curry, or Chauncey. All or point guards who can create shots. We really only need one, and any of them would work.
5) Iguodala – He doesn’t much of anything in the half court sets, but he’s been Team USA’s best defender and thus a source of a lot of transition offense.
You have just created a reasonable crunch time lineup, right there. If whoever the US was playing had some serious size, you could bring Odom in for Iggy or Gordon, but this seems like a good group to roll with.
If Iggy’s in, I’d go Rose as the point, if he’s out, Westbrook. I want a serious on-ball defender out there at all times.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
I still like Chandler for post defense.
You can’t tell me he was worse than Odom or Love against Splitter. Say what you will about his overall performance, but his best skill is still (hold position, contest post shot, turn and catch rebound). I’ve come around to the 4 wings 1 big in most situations, particularly if Love is in, since then rebounding isn’t an issue. But in the event that we face Spain or Brazil again, I think my preferred lineup would be:
Westbrook
Gordon
Durant
Love
Chandler
I know I’m becoming adjusted to the alternate-basketball-reality that is FIBA ball when I find myself second guessing-that lineup worrying it’s too plodding.
Calling Coach K a figurehead is a little perpsterous
You don’t win 870 games and Olympic gold medals without knowing what you’re doing.
And while Love has been very impressive this summer, this is another example of why advanced stats shouldn’t and aren’t the be-all-end-all in player evaluation. Anyone who projects…or worse, believes….that Love is a better player than Durant should be left on a deserted island for life. There are players who can stuff a box score and players who can carry a team, and Love isn’t a “carry the team” player
Umm.... huh?
Despite my issues with almost this entire paragraph, I’ll only address this one:
There are players who can stuff a box score and players who can carry a team, and Love isn’t a "carry the team" player
Are you saying he is only a player who can stuff the box score? Let’s not address the dozens of other ways we can categorize an individual player. An interesting way to try to prove a point. Also, while Love might not be a player who carries a team for 82 games per year, that doesn’t mean he isn’t capable. I’d like to hear why you think he isn’t, though.
Nevermind, I’m gonna keep going because this entire reply was just… I’m going with ‘preposterous.’
Anyone who projects…or worse, believes….that Love is a better player than Durant should be left on a deserted island for life.
Anyone who believes that this is what John Doe was doing should be left on a deserted island for life. I don’t think there are many interpretations of this post that leads to us thinking John Doe firmly believes that Love is better than Durant. Suggesting he thinks so is just… dumb.
And while Love has been very impressive this summer, this is another example of why advanced stats shouldn’t and aren’t the be-all-end-all in player evaluation.
I wonder how many times this will have to be rehashed before people drop this as a counterpoint to advanced stat usage: No one has said this. I know I’ve said at least 5 times that most everyone who uses advanced stats uses them in conjunction with their knowledge of the game and what they see on the court. For the life of me, I don’t understand why this needs to be repeated every time a debate about stats comes up. Is the anti-stats side that desperate for more [of the same, tired] ammo? Would you care to make an actual argument to why advanced stats are wrong here? How has Love not performed extremely well in his minutes? And before you begin, advanced stats said nothing about his defense.
Calling Coach K a figurehead is a little perpsterous You don’t win 870 games and Olympic gold medals without knowing what you’re doing.
Maybe he does know what he is doing, but he’s also lost an awful lot of games and he’s had teams that are far more talented than .500 win teams (including those gold medal teams). Is is not possible that he made a mistake or a misjudgement? Or that he really is playing Odom more because of external pressure?
Well I guess that’s all. Hope you don’t take this personally, as it’s nothing towards you, but this was just an awful reply that took shots that had no business being where they were and brought up counterpoints to nonexistant points.
You're not letting natural selection take its course! You're like the guy who invented the seatbelt...
Oh honestly
Holier-than-thou, feigned outrage is one of the dumbest things on the internet. “Figurehead” has nothing to do with Coach K’s coaching ability, college record, or past Olympic achievements. It’s not even an insult until someone decides to be the turd in the punch bowl to try to force you off your statements. Chuck Daly was a figurehead coach in the ‘92 Olympics. It’s not to say he didn’t do anything, but rather that he didn’t do everything he could." He didn’t call timeouts. He didn’t try to find his optimal rotation. He played semi-retired Bird and Magic as starters the whole time. And it was fine. They were going to win anyway, and the primary goal wasn’t to win by as much as possible.
Coach K doesn’t have the luxury of victory as a foregone conclusion. This isn’t the Dream Team or even the Redeem Team. But he’s deferring to veterans out of something other than a desire to maximize his team’s chances of victory. When we’re beating Iran by 30, that’s fine. But he played the same crappy 5 guys throughout the entire 4th quarter of a 2 point win against Brazil during which they scored 9 points total. That’s not good coaching. And it won’t be the next time he does it either.
This is another example of why whenever Oceanary reads something he doesn’t like and inevitably posts “This is another example of why advanced stats shouldn’t and aren’t the be-all-end-all in player evaluation.” in response to every advanced stat based post ever, it should be read as “This is another example of Oceanary not wanting to wrap his mind around or accept stats, and thus inflating them and the conclusions of their proprietors to levels that no one actually went to.” I never said Love was “better.” Nor did I say “more essential.” I’m saying Love has been more productive, and that’s true. If I were playing ogishkemuncie’s game from above, Durant would be my first pick, because he is still more essential to Team USA than Love. You’re responding to statements that you made up.
I sense holier-than-though feigned outrage...
….directed at me ;)
And probably not even feigned at that. I love the hypocrisy. Something of a trademark of yours these days.
If you’re winning, you’re winning. Why don’t we call Phil Jackson a figurehead coach while we’re at it? After all, he had Jordan, Pippen, Shaq, Kobe and didn’t play Luke Walton nearly as much as he should have. What a loser. The guy doesn’t lead his team at all.
Let’s be honest. This isn’t about the team possibly being or needing to be better. They’re unbeaten. This is about you using a miniscule sample size of wildly varying competition to support your man crush on Love.
He’s been impressive. He’s not the team’s savior. Get over it.
And taking a cheap shot at an all time great in the process
No amount of “rationale” will explain calling K a figurehead as anything but insulting. And what for? Because he isn’t playing your golden boy as much as he could? Team USA is unbeaten. If it isn’t broken, don’t fix it
Your senses effing suck then.
That wasn’t holier-that-thou, feigned outrage. That was me (and two other people) telling you that your post was terrible. Completely different and not hypocrisy.
Next line is an unfounded personal attack.
Then a failed metaphor/strawman argument.
Then an appeal to “You may be right, but it doesn’t really matter in the end.” Yeah, welcome to Canis Hoopus during the summer. Nothing we’re talking about is all that important. With your permission, the rest of us would like to continue analyzing what little basketball we have available to us rather than saying “Team USA is 5 – 0 and therefore couldn’t possibly benefit from any changes.”
Then close the post by putting more words in my mouth to set up a meaningless, not-quite-applicable-in-this-situation, tough-guy cliche.
Post something of substance. Please! If you want to take issue with something, you could post some actual analysis rather than just opening the Wikipedia page for “Logical Fallacy” and going down the list.
"this is another example of why advanced stats shouldn’t and aren’t the be-all-end-all in player evaluation"
No…. this is another example of why we always need to consider sample size. Something that no statistical evaluator would argue against.
52 minutes is not a large sample.
I wonder what an adequate sample size would be. If a player were to play the entirety of the FIBA world tournament without being pulled out of a game once, would that be enough of a sample even? It’s generally tough to get enough of a sample from a tournament.
Another problem with drawing a ton of conclusions from Love’s tournament stats is that there is so much variance in competition. In one game, USA will play Brazil, and then in another game, they’ll be playing Tunisia or Iran. I would have loved to see more of Kevin in the Brazil game because then we could have seen him perform against a top notch competitor. It would’ve shown us how Love’s numbers change with an increase in competition. (Also, I hope that the US team would’ve won by a few more points if Love had been playing instead of an exhausted Odom, who couldn’t even run across half court to play defense on a couple of Brazil’s possessions.)
As fans, we’re not really making any important decisions with this data set though, so there’s no harm in a little fun glance at Love’s amazing productivity. And if I were Coach K, I would probably play Kevin a few more minutes even if he commits a few dumb fouls, misses a defensive rotation, or turns the ball over in transition. Those might be the type of errors that decrease once a player is allowed to get into the flow of a game. He’s already cut down on his foul’s. He had three in his first game but since then has never committed more than a single foul in a game.
by oblivionspocket on Sep 3, 2010 1:18 PM CDT up reply actions
I went to Cold Stone Creamery
and they offered me a free sample of their new blueberry flavor. I had one and thought it was tasty. I thought about ordering a “Love It” size on that flavor, but realized that the sample size had not been large enough to draw any conclusions about whether I did or did not like that flavor of ice cream.
but think how AWESOME
it must be in the Gotta Have It size.
No one is getting Rubio's rights unless they pry them from our cold dead fingers.
by TheEvilProfessor on Sep 3, 2010 2:45 PM CDT up reply actions
but some ice cream is only good in small samples
but its performance drops as its sample size expands. That is, I can eat a few bites of that blueberry ice cream but I’d shoot myself if I had to eat an entire pint.
I would drive 10 miles to hear fucktwats sing.
KLove is the next Larry Bird
You all get so super cereal. What’s wrong with just subjectively enjoying the game? What would any game be without yelling at the screen, “PUT LOVE IN!!!” His nickname should be Mclovin. Only difference with FIBA ball is we’re up by 20 and not down by 20 when we’re screaming for Love.
I enjoy waiting and waiting and waiting and then OH, COACH K IS PLAYING THE RIDICULOUSLY HYPER PRODUCTIVE UNATHLETIC WHITE DUDE WHO PLAYS FOR MY SECOND WORST IN THE NBA TEAM!!! WOW HE JUST SCORED 9 STRAIGHT POINTS!!!! And back to the bench until the fourth quarter. It’s just like he’s playing for the Wolves!
Maybe the best part of Love’s game is truly not quantifiable. The best part about Love is the anticipation. I would say my bad for the pun, but well, I think it’s true.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 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.
