Is Kevin Love a "Winner"?
by ynotsema2 on Jan 15, 2011 12:43 AM CST
Email
PrintWhen you look at the record of this team during Kevin Love's time here, it's clear to see that he's lost more games than he's won. But if you're only counting wins and losses, then everybody on this team is a loser. What happens if you start looking at W-L record less and start looking at the games in a different light?
I've looked at the statistics from this season for Kevin Love (a supposed "loser") and Carmelo Anthony (a supposed "winner") to determine whether either deserves the public perception they have.
20.9 points; 15.3 rebounds; 2.4 assists; 2.2 turnovers - team record 10 - 30.
For reference, here are Anthony's per-36 numbers for the entire season:
24.5 points; 8.4 rebounds; 3.1 assists; 3 turnovers - team record 22 - 16 (4 - 4 in games where Anthony plays very little or not at all; which gives them a 60% win rate with him and a 50% win rate without him).
Here's a comparison of Love's numbers I've grouped into 6 categories:Love's per-36 numbers during losses of 10 points or more (i.e: blowout losses):
19.2 points; 14.9 rebounds; 2 assists; 2.4 turnovers - 13 games.
Love's per-36 numbers during 6 - 9 point losses (i.e: middling losses):
20.5 points; 14.4 rebounds; 2.5 assists; 2 turnovers - 7 games.
Love's per-36 numbers during overtime losses and losses of fewer than 5 points (i.e: winnable games that resulted in losses):
22.7 points; 16.3 rebounds; 2.3 assists; 2.5 turnovers - 10 games.
Love's per-36 numbers during wins of fewer than 5 points:
18.9 points; 15.2 rebounds; 2.4 assists; 2.4 turnovers - 2 games.
Love's per-36 numbers during 6 - 9 point wins:
20.3 points; 20.9 rebounds; 2.6 assists; 2.1 turnovers - 2 games.
Love's per-36 numbers during wins by 10 or more points:
23.8 points; 13.8 rebounds; 2.8 assists; 2.1 turnovers - 6 games.
The first thing that jumps out at me from these statistics is that the team's chances of winning improve as Love's production improves - no surprise there. I notice that Love's statistics in close losses look more like his statistics in middling to blowout wins than they look like his statistics during middling and blowout losses - once again, not really surprising. One other point of interest is that his rebounds were lowest in games the Wolves won by 10 or more points - I would guess this is the result of some combination of other players stepping up their rebounding efforts and Love getting fewer offensive rebounds because the team wasn't missing as many shots. I also think the Wolves record in games decided by fewer than 5 points is worth noting as it is an abysmal 2 - 10.
Here's a comparison of Anthony's numbers grouped into the same categories:
Anthony's per-36 numbers during losses of 10 points or more (i.e: blowout losses):
24.2 points; 6.2 rebounds; 1.4 assists; 4.2 turnovers - 4 games (Including 1 game in which Anthony did not play at all).
Anthony's per-36 numbers during 6 - 9 point losses (i.e: middling losses):
16.7 points; 11.9 rebounds; 2.6 assists; 2.9 turnovers - 6 games (Including 3 games in which Anthony did not play at all).
Anthony's per-36 numbers during overtime losses and losses of fewer than 5 points (i.e: winnable games that resulted in losses):
23.8 points; 9.3 rebounds; 2.3 assists; 3.1 turnovers - 6 games.
Anthony's per-36 numbers during wins of fewer than 5 points:
23.6 points; 7.4 rebounds; 4.5 assists; 2.7 turnovers - 7 games (Including 1 game in which Anthony played only 3 minutes).
Anthony's per-36 numbers during 6 - 9 point wins:
26.6 points; 7.4 rebounds; 4.1 assists; 1.6 turnovers - 7 games (Including 2 games in which Anthony did not play at all).
Anthony's per-36 numbers during wins of 10 points or more:
28 points; 8.4 rebounds; 3 assists; 3.6 turnovers - 8 games (Including 1 game in which Anthony did not play at all).
Judging by this data, it seems as though the fortunes of the Nuggets are not as closely tied to Anthony's production as the fortunes of the Wolves are tied to Love's production. While it seems like the margin of victory for the Nuggets increases when Anthony's scoring improves, the same cannot be said for their margin of defeat. The Nuggets record in games decided by 5 or fewer points is a decidedly average 7 - 6. When you factor in their record in games where Anthony did not see much or any playing time, it seems fair to conclude that the Nuggets are a better team than the Wolves even without Anthony.
To look at whether Love or Anthony are "winners", I chose to define the games they were responsible for winning or losing by different metrics (points and rebounds for Love vs. points and assists for Anthony) based on the different roles they play for their respective teams. After all, while it is fair to define a good game for Love based on points and rebounds because that's what the Wolves are looking for out of him every game, it is not fair to define a good game by Anthony by rebounds because the Nuggets get their rebounding from other players. Likewise it is fair to define a good game by Anthony based on points and assists because that's what the Nuggets are looking for out of him every game (for him to effectively make their offense go), but it is not fair to define a good game by Love by assists because he isn't supposed to make the offense go for the Wolves.
Here are Love's statistics broken down into 6 categories:
Love's per-36 numbers during losses where neither his points nor rebounds matched or exceeded his per-game season averages (21 and 15, respectively) (i.e: games where I consider Love to be responsible for the loss):
15.9 points; 12 rebounds; 2.2 assists; 2.8 turnovers - 8 games.
Love's per-36 numbers during losses where only one of either his points or rebounds matched or exceeded his per-game season averages (i.e: games where I consider Love to be at least partially responsible for the loss):
17.5 points; 15.9 rebounds; 2 assists; 1.9 turnovers - 8 games.
Love's per-36 numbers during losses where both his points and rebounds matched or exceeded his per-game season averages (i.e: games where I consider Love to not be responsible for the loss):
24.1 points; 16.3 rebounds; 2.4 assists; 2.2 turnovers - 14 games.
Love's per-36 numbers during wins where neither his points nor rebounds matched or exceeded his per-game season averages (i.e: games where I consider Love to not be responsible for the win):
16.4 points; 16.4 rebounds; 0.7 assists; 2 turnovers - 2 games.
Love's per-36 numbers during wins where only one of either his points or rebounds matched or exceeded his season averages (i.e: games where I consider Love to be at least partially responsible for the win):
20.6 points; 13.3 rebounds; 2.1 assists; 2.3 turnovers - 5 games.
Love's per-36 numbers during wins where both his points and rebounds matched or exceeded his season averages (i.e: games where I consider Love to be responsible for the win):
27.2 points; 21.5 rebounds; 3.5 assists; 1.9 turnovers - 3 games.
I'm not entirely sure what to make of these statistics. On the one hand, I could say that Love has done at least his share of the work in 30 games this season but the rest of his team let him down in 22 of those games. On the other hand, I could say that a winner is supposed to be able to carry his team to victory regardless of how poorly his teammates play. However, I may just have to stand by a comparison of the team's record when he plays average or better (27% win rate) vs. when he plays below average (20% win rate). Lastly, only 27% of the Wolves losses have been in games where Love did not play well.
Here are Anthony's statistics in those same 6 categories:
Anthony's per-36 numbers during losses where neither his points nor assists matched or exceeded his per-game season averages (23 and 3, respectively) (i.e: games where I consider Anthony to be responsible for the loss):
18.9 points; 11.7 rebounds; 1.7 assists; 4.5 turnovers - 7 games (Including 4 games in which Anthony did not play at all).
Anthony's per-36 numbers during losses where only one of either his points or assists matched or exceeded his per-game season averages (i.e: games where I consider Anthony to be at least partially responsible for the loss):
21.6 points; 8 rebounds; 2.2 assists; 3 turnovers - 7 games.
Anthony's per-36 numbers during wins where both his points and assists matched or exceeded his per- game season averages (i.e: games where I consider Anthony to not be responsible for the loss):
28.3 points; 10 rebounds; 2.7 assists; 2.7 turnovers - 2 games.
Anthony's per-36 numbers during wins where neither his points nor assists matched or exceeded his per-game season averages (i.e: games where I consider Anthony to not be responsible for the win):
19.6 points; 14.2 rebounds; 1.1 assists; 6.5 turnovers - 5 games (Including 1 game in which Anthony only played 3 minutes and 3 games in which Anthony did not play at all).
Anthony's per-36 numbers during wins where only one of either his points or assists matched or exceeded his per-game season averages (i.e: games where I consider Anthony to be at least partially responsible for the win):
25.1 points; 8.4 rebounds; 3.6 assists; 2.4 turnovers - 7 games.
Anthony's per-36 numbers during wins where both his points and assists matched or exceeded his per-game season averages (i.e: games where I consider Anthony to be responsible for the win):
27.4 points; 6.8 rebounds; 4.2 assists; 2.5 turnovers - 10 games.
With Anthony, he's had 26 games this season where he did at least his share of the work. Of those 26 games his team has won 17. Of the 12 games where Anthony was either missing in action or just plain missing, his team still managed to win 5 of them. For comparison's sake, the Nuggets have a 65% win rate when Anthony does his part or more and a 41% win rate when he's not playing well or just not playing. Lastly, 43% of the Nuggets losses were games in which Anthony either did not play or did not play well.
In hindsight, I may have chosen a poor second statistic in defining whether Anthony was responsible for a win or a loss. In the statistics regarding margin of victory for Anthony's team, a trend can be seen indicating that the Nuggets are better of when Anthony focuses more on scoring and less on creating for others.
When Anthony is on his game, the Nuggets are hard to beat. When he's not on his game, they become imminently more beatable. Alternately, the Wolves are an imminently beatable team even when Love is on his game. But when he's not on his game they barely stand a chance.
Small sample size aside, I feel it is safe to conclude that the Wolves are losing in spite of Kevin Love, NOT because of Kevin Love. And when the Wolves win it is largely because of Kevin Love, NOT in spite of him. Whereas, when the Nuggets lose it is more likely because of Anthony not playing well or not playing at all. And when the Nuggets win it is in large part due to Carmelo Anthony's superb scoring ability.
63 comments
|
6 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
You should start a per-36 Fantasy league next year.
Anthony Randolph #1 pick!
"We're not talking about me and Darko in the same sentence." - Chris Webber vs KAHN!
by caseycheesecake on Jan 15, 2011 2:20 AM CST reply actions 1 recs
I may feel inclined to add comments with the statistics of other players for comparisons.
If you have any suggestions for any other players you feel are worth comparing, feel free to post them as suggestions. I’ll probably make Al Jefferson my first addition tomorrow. I’d like to see what his numbers show with Utah.
My mother was a lovely woman, rest her soul, but she never saw the irony in calling me a "son of a bitch."
- Jack Nicholson
Al Jefferson's numbers with Utah
Here are Al Jefferson’s per-36 numbers for the season:
16.8 points; 8.9 rebounds; 1.7 assists; 1.3 turnovers – team record 27 – 13.
Jefferson’s per-36 numbers during blowout losses:
15.3 points; 8.6 rebounds; 1.6 assists; 1.2 turnovers – 9 games.
Jefferson’s per-36 numbers during middling losses:
12.5 points; 10 rebounds; 1 assists; 2.4 turnovers – 3 games.
Jefferson’s per-36 numbers during close losses:
12 points; 9.8 rebounds; 3.3 assists; 4.4 turnovers – 1 game.
Jefferson’s per 36 numbers during close wins:
16.1 points; 8.9 rebounds; 1.8 assists; 1.5 turnovers – 7 games.
Jefferson’s per-36 numbers during middling wins:
18.6 points; 8.7 rebounds; 1.6 assists; 1 turnovers – 7 games.
Jefferson’s per-36 numbers during blowout wins:
18.8 points; 8.8 rebounds; 1.9 assists; 1.1 turnovers – 13 games.
This is how the other half lives, isn’t it – the Jazz have a 7 – 1 record in games decided by 5 points or less. It seems that Jefferson doesn’t have that great an impact on the fortunes of his team; his points increase modestly and his rebounds remain the same as the team’s winning margin increases, but his points decrease and rebounds increase as the margin of loss decreases.
On to the next part of the analysis.
Jefferson’s per-36 numbers during losses where neither his points nor his rebounds matched or exceeded his per-game season averages (16 and 8, respectively):
11.3 points; 6.2 rebounds; 0.7 assists; 2 turnovers – 5 games.
Jefferson’s per-36 numbers during losses where only one of either his points or rebounds matched or exceeded his per-game season averages:
12.3 points; 10.7 rebounds; 2.3 assists; 2.7 turnovers – 3 games.
Jefferson’s per-36 numbers during losses where both his points and rebounds matched or exceeded his per-game season averages:
18.2 points; 10.7 rebounds; 2.1 assists; 1 turnovers – 5 games.
Jefferson’s per-36 numbers during wins where neither his points nor his rebounds matched or exceeded his per-game season averages:
14.7 points; 6.1 rebounds; 3 assists; 0.4 turnovers – 3 games.
Jefferson’s per-36 numbers during wins where only one of either his points or rebounds matched or exceeded his per-game season averages:
16.3 points; 8.4 rebounds; 2.1 assists; 0.8 turnovers – 7 games.
Jefferson’s per-36 numbers during wins where both his points and rebounds matched or exceeded his per-game season averages:
19 points; 9.3 rebounds; 1.5 assists; 1.3 turnovers – 17 games.
We can see from these figures the Jazz don’t let Jefferson’s good games go to waste very often, and they bail him out more frequently when he has a bad game as well – only 63% of his bad games result in a Utah loss compared to 80% of Love’s bad games resulting in a loss for the Wolves. But 38% of Utah’s losses are in games in which Jefferson does not play well, compared to 27% for Love. Also worth noting is that in his good games that result in losses, Jefferson’s numbers are actually better than his numbers in good games that resulted in wins – with a relatively small (percentage wise) drop in scoring. I look at this and wonder whether that is indicative of the team carrying him more than him carrying the team. Also, when looking at both data sets it seems that Jefferson’s turnovers are probably disproportionately responsible for Utah’s losses.
My mother was a lovely woman, rest her soul, but she never saw the irony in calling me a "son of a bitch."
- Jack Nicholson
Chris Bosh's numbers for all of last season with Toronto
Here are Chris Bosh’s per-36 numbers for the 2009-10 season with Toronto:
23.9 points; 10.8 rebounds; 2.4 assists; 2.4 turnovers – team record 40 – 42.
Blowout losses: 22.7 points; 11.1 rebounds; 1.9 assists; 2.6 turnovers – 24 games (6 games where Bosh effectively DNP, and 1 half-game).
Middling losses: 28 points; 9.7 rebounds; 2.2 assists; 1.9 turnovers – 11 games (2 DNPs).
Close losses: 24.1 points; 9.9 rebounds; 2.5 assists; 2.5 turnovers – 7 games.
Close wins: 21.8 points; 11.2 rebounds; 3 assists; 3 turnovers – 12 games (1 DNP).
Middling wins: 22 points; 11.4 rebounds; 1.7 assists; 3.3 turnovers – 9 games (1DNP).
Blowout wins: 25.1 points; 11 rebounds; 2.8 assists; 1.7 turnovers – 19 games (3 DNPs).
Looking at his averages in close losses and middling losses, those games are probably indicative of Bosh attempting to will his team to victory when his teammates are having bad games. Whereas it seems like his team played well enough in close and middling wins to let Bosh coast to just below his averages in those games – and if Bosh happens to have a good game on those nights the result is a blowout win.
Loss with both below ssn. ave. (24, 10): 19.2 pts; 6.8 reb; 2.7 ast; 1 TO – 15 games (8.5 DNPs).
Loss with one below season average: 20 pts; 10.5 reb; 1.9 ast; 3.1 TO – 12 games.
Loss with both above season average: 30.1 pts; 11.8 reb; 2.1 ast; 2.4 TO – 15 games.
Win with both below season average: 17.6 pts; 7.8 reb; 2.3 ast; 2.3 TO – 10 games (5 DNPs).
Win with one below season average: 22 pts; 10.9 reb; 2.5 ast; 2.6 TO – 17 games.
Win with both above season average: 27 pts; 12.6 reb; 2.8 ast; 2.3 TO – 13 games.
From this data it appears that when Bosh puts up numbers better than his average, his team plays only marginally better than when he puts up numbers worse than his average. Their sweet spot was in games where Bosh was shouldering either the scoring or the rebounding load, but not both. As is the case with Anthony this year, Bosh’s team last year was fairly capable of carrying on without him – with a 5 – 7 record in games where Bosh did not play at all (0-2 in games where Bosh started but played 16 minutes or less).
My mother was a lovely woman, rest her soul, but she never saw the irony in calling me a "son of a bitch."
- Jack Nicholson
Michael Beasley's numbers this season
Per-36 minutes: 22.3 pts; 6.2 reb; 2.1 ast; 2.8 TO – team record 10 – 30.
Blowout loss: 19 pts; 5.8 reb; 2.1 ast; 3 TO – 13 games (1.5 DNP)
Middling loss: 24.8 pts; 5.7 reb; 1.6 ast; 3 TO – 7 games
Close loss: 20.9 pts; 6.4 reb; 0.9 ast; 2.6 TO – 10 games (0.5 DNP)
Close win: 27.5 pts; 5.9 reb; 0.9 ast; 1.4 TO – 2 games
Middling win: 33.8 pts; 6.6 reb; 2.6 ast; 1.8 TO – 2 games
Blowout win: 19.8 pts; 7.8 reb; 2.7 ast; 3.8 TO – 6 games (2 DNP)
One thing is for sure about Beasley, he’s not padding his point total during blowouts. It also seems like the difference between a close loss and a close or middling win is whether he is turning the ball over instead of scoring points near the end of games – strange how the statistics actually seem to support what we’ve been witnessing all year.
Loss with both below (21 pts, 2 ast): 19 pts; 6.4 reb; 0.8 ast; 3.2 TO – 9 games (1.5 DNP)
Loss with 1 below: 18.9 pts; 5.1 reb; 2.3 ast; 3 TO – 13 games (0.5 DNP)
Loss with both above: 25.8 pts; 7 reb; 2.4 ast; 2.3 TO – 8 games
Win with both below: 13.9 pts; 6.3 reb; 0.6 ast; 4.4 TO – 4 games (2 DNP)
Win with 1 below: 27.5 pts; 5.9 reb; 0.9 ast; 1.4 TO – 2 games
Win with both above: 29.2 pts; 7.7 reb; 3.4 ast; 2.5 TO – 4 games
I chose points and assists for determining if he had a good game because those are what I used for Anthony, and Beasley is supposed to be our “Melo-lite.” When compared to Love, Beasley has had 3 more games where he’s failed to do his share, but the team’s winning rate when he does at least his share is only 22% – which is 5% less than when Love does his share. And the team has won 31% of the games where Beasley did not play or did not play well – compared to only 20% when Love did not play well. Judging by these statistics alone (bringing in no other factors such as shot-creation, etc.), it seems pretty clear that Kevin Love is more important to this team and has a bigger impact on the outcome of games than Micheal Beasley. However, we all know that basketball is not played by 5 individuals but rather it is played by a team, and it seems pretty as though the team needs both playing well at the same time to have much of a chance to win – the efforts of one alone are rarely enough.
My mother was a lovely woman, rest her soul, but she never saw the irony in calling me a "son of a bitch."
- Jack Nicholson
The rebounds and points
Look good for Love but these numbers dont show how piss poor his D is. To me he is on big al level as far as D or he might be worse. For the most point Love’s match ups during games are a wash given his poor D. But his numbers do look good however that is why he will be an all star
Carmelo Anthony's defense is "piss poor" as well,
but that doesn’t prevent people from thinking of him as a “winner.” It’s part of the reason why I chose Anthony for a comparison.
My mother was a lovely woman, rest her soul, but she never saw the irony in calling me a "son of a bitch."
- Jack Nicholson
Anthony D is not piss poor
Its Ok, average at best. Love gets beat on one on one situations and on rotations. Plus Love does not have the scoring ability that Anthony has. But i agree with your takes we win if Love has a good game. At the same time we lose when he has a good game also. I think it depends on the other guys if the wolves win or not.
I would have included some defensive metrics in my analysis,
but I don’t think any of the regularly available statistics for defense are adequate at describing Love’s (in)ability as a defender. Love’s main impact as a defender comes in the form of charges taken rather than blocks or steals, so it wouldn’t be fruitful to compare how many blocks and steals Anthony and Love get.
I don’t know what goes into the defensive metrics in this comparison from basketball-reference, but if you look at DRtg and DWS (in the “Advanced” section) for both Anthony and Love you’ll be surprised at what you find.
My mother was a lovely woman, rest her soul, but she never saw the irony in calling me a "son of a bitch."
- Jack Nicholson
Not really
Loves Advanced" numbers are higher becouse he rebounds the ball. Not because he is some ok defender. These same numbers also said that Beas is a defender at the 4 than Klove is. which goes against what many here on this site think. so which is it? do you think the numbers are spot on in this case too.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/pcm_finder.cgi?request=1&sum=1&p1=loveke01&y1=2011&p2=beaslmi01&y2=2010
Neither guy's defense is "piss poor."
They’re both pretty average on that end. Love’s is only piss poor when he’s forced out on shooters. He’s not good at that. He’s definitely not a poor defender in the post, even if he doesn’t block shots. He draws charges and plays position defense.
What is it
about these numbers that you don’t understand?
NET PER*
PG -4.7
SG -7.2
SF -6.2
PF +5.6
C -0.8
Kevin Love is not the problem.
haters gonna hate
you’ll never convince chuck otherwise.
"I haven't died," he said. "Right now I'm drinking a beer and eating fried chicken. What were you expecting, a funeral?" - Yao Ming
I will stop the hate if
His d can get close to this player
net 48-min production by position
Kevin Love
Pts 1.6
http://www.82games.com/1011/10MIN13.HTM
Josh Smith
Pts 1.3
http://www.82games.com/1011/10ATL11.HTM
Love outscores his man to a greater extent than Smith does.
by highpockets on Jan 15, 2011 12:00 PM CST up reply actions
numbers are for when both players are at PF
by highpockets on Jan 15, 2011 12:05 PM CST up reply actions
Love gets more shots
than Josh plus Josh is a way better defender. Josh is the , 3rd sometimes 4th option for the hawks while love is the 2nd option on the wolves. and yet the numbers are close.
the wolves admit they run absolutely no plays for Love
he is not an option
I haven't written an insightful post in years.
Not really true though
While I agree they don’t run anywhere near as many plays for Love as they should (he is the league’s most efficient scorer for anyone who has a decent sized offensive role) the Wolves do run a fair amount of pick and pop/pick and rolls with Love and Luke. Its actually almost certainly the Wolves most productive play.
I will stop the hate if
His d can get close to this player
(What, Mutombo is a bad comparison for Love? Really? Huh. Surprising. Anyway, yeah, Josh Smith and Kevin Love, two totally comparable players.)
by googoleeoottooooleeoottooooleeeatta on Jan 15, 2011 1:04 PM CST up reply actions
That is the rule I go by
Both guys are #2 or 3 scoring options. They should make the same amount of money. Love is a better rebounder but josh is the better defender. I will pick the better defender all the time.
So KLove is the best rebounder
in the league, one of the best 3 point shooters in the league and also one of the most efficient volume scorers in the league. But you will only “stop the hate” if he becomes nearly as good a defender as the guy you consider to be the best defender in the league? What’s your problem?
I never said he was the best
I just said he is one of the best.
My only question regarding those numbers
Is that if the defensive scheme is to consistently double in the post and allow wide-open three pointers does that skew the numbers somewhat in favor of our post-players and make our perimeter defenders look worse than they are? Notwithstanding that possible qualification, my subjective observations are that Kevin Love is a better one-on-one defender than he gets credit for and has made a much stronger effort lately on rotating a closing out. I also seem to notice that opponents are not shooting mid range fadeaways and turnarounds against like they did last year. Yes, he’s a little shorter and cannot leap as high as some of the players he guards so sometimes right under the basket he gives up bunnies pretty easily. But overall i don’t think he is the defensive liability he is billed as.
good points about the scheme
That makes love’s D look lieven worse. He gets help and still gives up a lot of points points
You seem to have read the first line and a half of Mike B's post!
Congratulations, Chuck! Soon I expect you’ll be wading through whole paragraphs in order to respond to the actual observations and arguments people are addressing to you.
Did you just black out at “notwithstanding,” or something?
"Those things about which we cannot theorize, we must narrate." – Umberto Eco
FFS, stop making stuff up!
This stuff isn’t hard to look up. Opposing PFs are, by far, the least productive position of the Wolves’ opponents. Love’s match-ups are not a wash.because of his bad D.
http://www.82games.com/1011/10MIN13.HTM#bypos
http://www.82games.com/1011/1011MIN5.HTM
Whether Love is at the PF or C his man is producing far less than when anyone else is playing the same position.
by Ailuridae on Jan 15, 2011 1:51 PM CST up reply actions 5 recs
ynotsema2.....Very interesting...nice post
So, will the wolves beat the spread tonight ?
by mnsportsjunkie on Jan 15, 2011 10:36 AM CST reply actions
A very good post, and recommended
Also an interesting statistical take on ‘Melo in today’s New York Times:
I identified 16 players who have accumulated least 2,000 minutes with the Nuggets in years when Anthony was on the team, and have also played at least 2,000 minutes in the N.B.A. without Anthony (either because they were playing for a different team or because they were on the Nuggets before Anthony’s rookie season). All but 2 of the players – Marcus Camby and Voshon Lenard – posted a higher TS% playing with Anthony than without him, and on average, he improved his teammates’ TS% by 3.8 points (to 55.0 percent from 51.2 percent).
Kevin Love is not the problem.
by PoorDick on Jan 15, 2011 11:18 AM CST reply actions 1 recs
Thanks for the link...
that article makes a lot of sense and is more convincing than my dead horse-beating, “he commands a double team” argument.
can they control for the George Karl is a good coach effect?
I haven't written an insightful post in years.
Yeah
That was my immediate thought. Sadly 82 games doesn’t have its player pair data up at the moment but I remember looking at them for KG and Duncan and being amazed that there wasn’t a consistent demonstrable effect on their teammates FG% or scoring rates. Some teammates were better some were worse.
What’s strange is that Nate has access to the raw data to actually look at the effects when Melo is actually on the court and off the court. No idea why he didin’t do that.
I love how specific these searches are becoming
For instance, simply drop rebound % from 22 to 20 you get this: http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/tiny.cgi?id=yQzai of course the other 3 members shot a max of 12 3-pointers … I appreciate the historic nature of his play but for every additional search term you add you are naturally cutting down on your results. I tend to roll my eyes anytime someone on espn say so and so is the first to do this AND this AND this AND…
I actually downplayed some of his numbers on the search
I get that you can play around with the BR tool to get it to say what you want it to say, but I think the point is that efficient scorers who dominate the glass and can bombard from 3 are a rare breed.
That's Mr. Downer to you.
www.canishoopus.com
I think the real point there is
that shooting the 3 well and rebounding well are such an odd combination. Really most of the time you simply can’t crash the boards from the perimeter (on offense) without getting burned too often. The fact that he is efficient is icing on the (Love) cake.
Yep
Also, the rates at which he is excelling at both of these things is simply stunning. He’s not just doing both, he’s killing both. To have a guy this efficient and productive with basically nothing big being running for him is amazing. The guy is producing these numbers as a glue guy. Can you imagine putting him on a team with a top flight scorer with a high usage rate? Lordy. Here’s hoping Beasley can figure it out because he’s been gifted a perfect sidekick.
That's Mr. Downer to you.
www.canishoopus.com
Aha Mr. Beasley was right
His son is a Batman!
by running with Twolves (and scissors) on Jan 21, 2011 11:22 PM CST up reply actions
Again: Scores 20, gets 5 boards.
Look. These are not quirky categories. 20/15, since 1984: Kevin Love’s the only example.
"Those things about which we cannot theorize, we must narrate." – Umberto Eco
Hey, Zebano? 20+ points a game, 15+ rebounds a game. 20/15. Simple enough?
Most basic search terms possible. Here are all the players who’ve done those two things in a season, ever, including this year’s stats.
The resulting list.
To help you follow the list, I’ve sorted them by turnover percentage(*). Yeah, it makes no sense, but you won’t get lost – because there are only 4 player seasons on the list, and two of them are Moses Freakin’ Malone. The only player on this list since 1984 (when Michael Jordan brought fire to earth) is Kevin Love.
Broad enough for ya? ;-)
- Oh… Did I mention that Love this year turns it over less often than the other players?
"Those things about which we cannot theorize, we must narrate." – Umberto Eco
That is not correct
Wilt Chamberlain had 20/15 a dozen times. Not sure how his seasons don’t show up.
by PhoenixWolf on Jan 23, 2011 10:58 AM CST up reply actions
You're right, and the next time I hit the same search he showed up – but not a dozen times.
Another All-Time search for 20/15.
(I think the problem was missing minutes data for Wilt? I’d set a minimum total minutes threshold that was fairly low, to find anyone who’d done it in limited time before being injured. But he’s still not showing up 14 times, either… I think The Stilt may have “broken math” in the way we sometimes refer to.)
The “Since 1984” search is still accurate. Kevin Love’s the only player on the list; if he continues at this level, he’ll be the only player who managed that since the 1984 draft brought the NBA into its golden age.
"Those things about which we cannot theorize, we must narrate." – Umberto Eco
Hmmm...
It doesn’t seem to be taking any seasons from before 1970. Given the differences in the game before that time I tend to disregard statistics from that era anyway.
Either way,
somehow the presence of Wilt Chamberlain as a comparison doesn’t exactly make me downhearted about Kevin Love.
"Those things about which we cannot theorize, we must narrate." – Umberto Eco
+1
Timberwolves - NBA champs 2013!
(used with permission - Wolf in MO)
by frankenhoops on Jan 27, 2011 3:10 PM CST up reply actions
As a reminder: Don't Feed the Troll
My mother was a lovely woman, rest her soul, but she never saw the irony in calling me a "son of a bitch."
- Jack Nicholson
by ynotsema2 on Jan 20, 2011 10:51 AM CST reply actions 2 recs
Nice post.
Kevin Love is the answer, not the problem.
"A bizarre and extremely rare hybrid Blazer/Laker fan, Timbo has always struggled to contain the Beast Within, like Dr. Jekyll, Bruce Banner, or Ted Kennedy." — Miled Animal
Kevin Love is a great player, but Kevin Love is not a game changer - not
exceptionally athletic, easily blocked, undersized. I wish it were otherwise, but his numbers don’t seem to have the impact that they should. Maybe they would on a better team. Maybe the rest of the guys are just plain lousy, which diminishes his stamp on the game.
"Wolves: bringing it - or bricking it?"
He's not an impact player
In the sense that he won’t change the game on D, and that he’s not a defense-drawing shot-creator on O. He does change the game by drawing defenders on his 3-pt shooting and on his rebounds. He’s also saving and gaining quite a few possessions with his rebounding, which is a solidly empirical way of measuring how much one can change a game.
He’s never gonna be a Durant or a Melo-type scoerer, and he’s never gonna be a Dwight Howard or Andrew Bogut on D. He’s still going to change the game, warts and all, by being a big man who has the unique combination of 3-point shooting and rebounding. Teams have to game plan and react to his shooting and rebounding, so that changes the game regardless of how much it changes it.
I was talking to a friend tonight about the movie “Knight and Day”, and I made the point that it’s not too bad if you appreciate it for what it is. It’s supposed to be lighthearted action/romance fare that doesn’t have much point to it. If that’s what I expect out of it, it delivered reasonably well. If I want every movie to be high art, I’ll be disappointed with almost any movie I watch. It’s the same with Kevin. If you expect him to be an A-1 do-it-all franchise player, he’s disappointing. If you see him as a very valuable addition to any team, then he’s worth appreciating for being a great player regardless.
"We must always seek the truth in our opponents' error and the error in our own truth." - RN
Here are a few more quick movie-analogy questions: Have you ever seen a great performance in a really bad movie? Does the movie diminish that performance, or is the performance good regardless of the movie? Aren’t a great director and/or wirter just as important as actors, even in movies with bad actors?
Another: Dustin Hoffman and Robert DeNiro are regarded as two of the finest actors of the past few decades. Just because they were in a terrible production like “Little Fockers”, does that mean that they are not game-changing actors? Or are the material and supporting cast so bad in the first place that even they can’t do anything with it?
I know these are imperfect examples, but the point is that one can be great in a bad production, and also that the production surrounding one is integral to one’s success. 3 of the best players in the league (LeBron, Wade, Kobe) are good enough to get their teams to the playoffs on their backs alone, but i’s a very rare player who can do that. Even then, none of them have won championships or made much of a dent in the playoffs without a great supporting cast and coach around them.
"We must always seek the truth in our opponents' error and the error in our own truth." - RN
Seriously: You give your team multiple extra possessions late in a close game, but that's not "game changing"?
Because, to quote BaylorWest, you’re not “exceptionally athletic” when you do it?
"Those things about which we cannot theorize, we must narrate." – Umberto Eco
Here are the results (regarding Love and Beasley) of a cross-reference of my categories:
(Updated to include games played after the original post)
Love:
Good game (>20 pts and >14 reb) – 5 BL, 5 ML, 7 CL, 0 CW, 1 MW, 2 BW; 3 – 17 overall.
Average game (>20pts or >14 reb) – 5 BL, 2 ML, 3 CL, 2 CW, 0 MW, 3 BW; 5 – 10 overall.
Bad game (<21 pts and <15 reb) – 5 BL, 1 ML, 2 CL, 0 CW, 1 MW, 1 BW; 2 – 8 overall.
Beasley:
Good game (>20 pts and >1 ast) – 3 BL, 2 ML, 5 CL, 0 CW, 2 MW, 2 BW; 4 – 10 overall.
Average game (>20 pts or >1 ast) – 6 BL, 4 ML, 5 CL, 2 CW, 0 MW, 0 BW; 2 – 15 overall. 0.5 DNP.
Bad game (<21 pts and <2 ast) – 6 BL, 2 ML, 2 CL, 0 CW, 0 MW, 4 BW; 4 – 10 overall. 4 DNP.
Here’s how the outcomes look when pairing each possible combination – with a list of the games that fall into each category (with opposing team name in parentheses to denote a Timberwolves win):
Love Bad, Beasley Bad: 3 BL, 1 CL; 0 – 4 overall. SAC, MEM, MIA, LAC
Love Bad, Beasley Average: 1 BL,1 ML; 0 – 2 overall. ATL, GSW
Love Bad, Beasley Good: 1 BL, 1 CL, 1 MW, 1 BW; 2 – 2 overall. SAC, CHA, LAL, (NOH)
Love Average, Beasley Bad: 3 BL, 1 ML, 2 BW; 2 – 4 overall. ORL, HOU, DAL, (NJN), (WAS), ORL
Love Average, Beasley Average: 1 BL, 2 CL, 2 CW; 2 – 3 overall. (LAC), (CLE), BOS, SAS, SAS
Love Average, Beasley Good: 1 BL, 1 ML, 1 CL, 1 BW; 1 – 3 overall. (MIL), POR, DEN, LAC
Love Good, Beasley Bad: 1 ML, 1 CL, 2 BW; 2 – 2 overall. SAS, (CLE), (DET), PHO
Love Good, Beasley Average: 4 BL, 3 ML, 3 CL; 0 – 10 overall. LAL, OKC, SAS, NYK, OKC, CHI, DEN, POR, SAS, HOU
Love Good, Beasley Good: 1 BL, 1 ML, 3 CL, 1 MW; 1 – 5 overall. (NYK), ATL, GSW, UTA, CHA, OKC
My mother was a lovely woman, rest her soul, but she never saw the irony in calling me a "son of a bitch."
- Jack Nicholson
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Canis Hoopus
Related FanShots on Canis Hoopus
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Ball Don't Lie - NBA - Yahoo! Sport
- Adam Morrison looks great, everyone
- Create-a-Caption: Tim Duncan puts some stank on it
- LeBron James won’t even give Lance Stephenson half a bar
- Let’s all hate the Oklahoma City Thunder shirts that take a needless shot at the team’s move from Seattle (PHOTO)
- The Golden State Warriors will likely move to San Francisco in 2017
