There's already an insane amount of predictions on the internet for the NBA playoff, so I'll keep this short. People think the Heat were given a path with no resistance to the finals, but the Pacers and Celtics aren't bad teams. Besides, the Heat easily got past the Bulls last year; what they need to do is perform in
(2) Miami Heat versus (3) Indiana Pacers
The Pacers don't inspire fear, but they're a better team than they seem and when their best players are on the court they're pretty darn good. Their starting lineup is +15 per 48 minutes, while the Heat's starting lineup is just +9.7. However, those numbers are unadjusted +/-, and as such there are many problems associated. Using an adjusted flavor, the average +/- for the starting lineups for the Pacers and Heat is +2.06 and 2.82, respectively. And it's not like the Pacers have a better bench even compared to the Heat. LeBron didn't play huge minutes versus the Knicks, and I expect their big three to crush any possibility of extending the series.
Prediction: Heat in 5
Random prediction: Hibbert with a 20-20 game.
(8) Philadelphia 76ers versus (4) Boston Celtics
This will be an ugly series. Both teams are great defensively and below average offensively, and given how playoff games have a slower pace than the regular season I expect the final scores to be in the lower 80's. It's like instead of an unstoppable force versus an immovable object it's an immovable object versus an immovable object. But don't focus on the points per game. Instead focus on Garnett's defense, Rondo's passing, Iguodala's dunking and perimeter hawking, Avery Bradley's on-ball pressure, Ray Allen's shooting and Spencer Hawes' strange transformation into a useful basketball player. For me it's a toss-up if the series'll go five or seven games; tweaking the numbers just a little is enough the change the results. I think Boston has the match-up advantage because Boston's guards can control Philly's guards, and Garnett has been playing well enough lately that he'll make Hawes and Brand's lives very hard.
Prediction: Celtics in 5.
Random prediction: Iguodala will have a dunk on Garnett that reminds everyone of how old the Celtic is.
Showing posts with label Boston Celtics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Boston Celtics. Show all posts
Saturday, May 12, 2012
Friday, December 9, 2011
A Tale of Two Twin Power Forwards: Brandon Bass for Big Baby
In a surprising move, Boston and Orlando decided to swap undersized big men: Brandon Bass for Glen “Big Baby” Davis. At first glance, the casual fan won’t see the point because the players feel so similar, but on deeper analysis the Celtics got to upgrade their power forward with a better version of himself.
Whenever a team gets the media spotlight and deep playoff runs, the role players on that team often receive more credit than they deserve. Posey leveraged a few open three pointers and decent defense into a long-term deal with the Hornets. Fisher gets minutes and praise on a good Laker team whether or not he’s playing well. Sasha Vujacic got one of the best modern basketball nicknames, “The Machine.”
Big Baby is undersized vertically, not horizontally, and with is lack of jumping ability he cannot block shots or even rebound, while his charges make up for his lack of lift. Bass, however, has similar problems, as his rebounding are nearly identical (rebounding rate around 11 to 12 each season) but he does not take charges at a prolific rate with his decent ability to block shots evening the balance (he almost blocked twice as many shots as Davis in less minutes per game.) Davis’ reputation is probably better than his defense, but he can be a competent defender at the 4-spot. It’s hard to rate him with plus/minus because he’s been backing up one of the best defenders in the league in Garnett. Bass is a decidedly worse defender, but has worked enough to become competent. Hardly a compliment, but he’s not a liability in most match-ups. But this trade wasn’t made for Davis’ defense.
Orlando has also coveted power forwards who can shoot well from distance. Glen Davis has the reputation of being a good spot-up shooter and some commentators are enamored with him for being a center who can hit a jump shot, even though he’s terrible as a center defensively and does not have good numbers from outside the basket. Last season he was at 35.5% from 16 to 23 feet (not a fluke as the previous one it was 33.0%) and a field goal percentage of 44.8% overall. His shooting will not likely improve as he’s been at 50 TS% for three straight seasons. If you say the long jumper is not his forte, then why did he take 4.6 shots from 16 to 23 feet? What is his strength offensively? His percentages near the rim have always been average or below average with a low mark last season of 51.8%.
Brandon Bass, by contrast, is one of the best midrange shooters in the league. Last season he took 3.3 shots from 16 to 23 feet and hit 47% with only six players at a better percentage with more attempts. In fact, out of the last four seasons his worst mark from both 10 to 15 feet and 16 to 23 is 43% last year from the longer distance. Davis’ best was 43.7% from the shorter distance, and it was only for 1.1 attempts a game. Even at the rim Bass has the advantage despite being smaller, and his true-shooting percentage, which takes into account free throws and three pointers, has been in the upper 50’s the past four years, an accomplishment Davis has yet to achieve for a full season.
In other tangible factors, Davis has the advantage in age by only a year, but his extra forty pounds and always hovering around 300 pounds does not bode well for the future. Bass has a good contract with four million this year and a player option for another four next year, which he’ll likely drop for a new contract. If he does well, Boston can retain his services at a time when Garnett and Ray Allen come off large deals. Glen Davis’ new deal (it’s a sign and trade) has not been announced, but it shouldn’t be for too much more than Bass, and it’s unclear to see how this helps them in a Howard trade.
Let’s review: similar players, nearly the same age, who play the same position. If you say Orlando did the trade for Davis’ offense, you are, without a doubt, completely wrong in a way that’s rare in NBA analysis: Bass’ shooting has been consistently excellent, and Davis’ consistently poor to almost terrible. Davis has few other offensive skills to make up the divide, as he’s not a great passer or post player, and only his small turnover rate last season an advantage (though possibly a fluke if you look at this career.) If you say Orlando did the trade because Davis is better in other areas, well, where are they? Is Davis’ defense that great that it trumps the shooting? Can anyone argue that because with box score and advanced statistics and even scouting there is no evidence? Since they are roughly the same age and Davis is the one with an injury and obesity history, I’d argue that there is no conclusive way to prove it was a worthy trade for Orlando. It’s almost as though Davis is viewed as a good player because he plays for a good team, but even the best teams have scrubs on the bench.
When you trade such similar players, you hope you’re the one duping the other team, as it’s clearly not a trade for need. I can understand why Howard wants to leave because his organization is failing to provide him with a real team and instead has traded one of their few good players for one who seems like a fringe rotation player.
Whenever a team gets the media spotlight and deep playoff runs, the role players on that team often receive more credit than they deserve. Posey leveraged a few open three pointers and decent defense into a long-term deal with the Hornets. Fisher gets minutes and praise on a good Laker team whether or not he’s playing well. Sasha Vujacic got one of the best modern basketball nicknames, “The Machine.”
Big Baby is undersized vertically, not horizontally, and with is lack of jumping ability he cannot block shots or even rebound, while his charges make up for his lack of lift. Bass, however, has similar problems, as his rebounding are nearly identical (rebounding rate around 11 to 12 each season) but he does not take charges at a prolific rate with his decent ability to block shots evening the balance (he almost blocked twice as many shots as Davis in less minutes per game.) Davis’ reputation is probably better than his defense, but he can be a competent defender at the 4-spot. It’s hard to rate him with plus/minus because he’s been backing up one of the best defenders in the league in Garnett. Bass is a decidedly worse defender, but has worked enough to become competent. Hardly a compliment, but he’s not a liability in most match-ups. But this trade wasn’t made for Davis’ defense.
Orlando has also coveted power forwards who can shoot well from distance. Glen Davis has the reputation of being a good spot-up shooter and some commentators are enamored with him for being a center who can hit a jump shot, even though he’s terrible as a center defensively and does not have good numbers from outside the basket. Last season he was at 35.5% from 16 to 23 feet (not a fluke as the previous one it was 33.0%) and a field goal percentage of 44.8% overall. His shooting will not likely improve as he’s been at 50 TS% for three straight seasons. If you say the long jumper is not his forte, then why did he take 4.6 shots from 16 to 23 feet? What is his strength offensively? His percentages near the rim have always been average or below average with a low mark last season of 51.8%.
Brandon Bass, by contrast, is one of the best midrange shooters in the league. Last season he took 3.3 shots from 16 to 23 feet and hit 47% with only six players at a better percentage with more attempts. In fact, out of the last four seasons his worst mark from both 10 to 15 feet and 16 to 23 is 43% last year from the longer distance. Davis’ best was 43.7% from the shorter distance, and it was only for 1.1 attempts a game. Even at the rim Bass has the advantage despite being smaller, and his true-shooting percentage, which takes into account free throws and three pointers, has been in the upper 50’s the past four years, an accomplishment Davis has yet to achieve for a full season.
In other tangible factors, Davis has the advantage in age by only a year, but his extra forty pounds and always hovering around 300 pounds does not bode well for the future. Bass has a good contract with four million this year and a player option for another four next year, which he’ll likely drop for a new contract. If he does well, Boston can retain his services at a time when Garnett and Ray Allen come off large deals. Glen Davis’ new deal (it’s a sign and trade) has not been announced, but it shouldn’t be for too much more than Bass, and it’s unclear to see how this helps them in a Howard trade.
Let’s review: similar players, nearly the same age, who play the same position. If you say Orlando did the trade for Davis’ offense, you are, without a doubt, completely wrong in a way that’s rare in NBA analysis: Bass’ shooting has been consistently excellent, and Davis’ consistently poor to almost terrible. Davis has few other offensive skills to make up the divide, as he’s not a great passer or post player, and only his small turnover rate last season an advantage (though possibly a fluke if you look at this career.) If you say Orlando did the trade because Davis is better in other areas, well, where are they? Is Davis’ defense that great that it trumps the shooting? Can anyone argue that because with box score and advanced statistics and even scouting there is no evidence? Since they are roughly the same age and Davis is the one with an injury and obesity history, I’d argue that there is no conclusive way to prove it was a worthy trade for Orlando. It’s almost as though Davis is viewed as a good player because he plays for a good team, but even the best teams have scrubs on the bench.
When you trade such similar players, you hope you’re the one duping the other team, as it’s clearly not a trade for need. I can understand why Howard wants to leave because his organization is failing to provide him with a real team and instead has traded one of their few good players for one who seems like a fringe rotation player.
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Perkins for Jeff Green: Boston's folly
In one of the most surprising trades of the past year, Boston traded Perkins for Oklahoma's Green. Since a few games have been played since the trade, one can look at some of the results, which have been troublesome for the Celtics. Since they've been a contender for a few years now, trading one of their starters caused an uproar among the Boston fans, and I'm sorry to say I can't find a reason why they should be satisfied with the trade, unless Perkins' knee explodes into Nate Robinson sized pieces within a couple years.
There are a few defenses of the trade, most of which make no sense:
1) Boston wants to get younger
... by trading a 26 year-old center for a 24 year-old forward and 27 year-old. Huh? Now they're reliant on an O'Neal center combination, having sent their rookie Turkish center in a separate deal, with a combined age of 71 years. While it's true Perkins has had injury problems, big defensive centers and power forwards retain their value for a long time, even when they lose much of their speed and quickness. If they wanted to get younger, maybe they should have traded one of their players struggling with baldness and bladder control.
2) They filled a hole.
So which hole did they fill? Most argued Pierce needed a quality backup and a way to defend tough wings in the playoffs like Lebron, and Jeff Green was a great solution. However, they traded their starting center for a backup in a role that doesn't really suit him. Green has only been playing around 20 minutes a game. If they wanted a big wing off the bench who could relieve pressure off of Pierce and defend some of the best players in the world, why didn't they try to get Tony Allen back? Shane Battier? Brewer? Gerald Wallace? All these players were clearly available.
3) They can play small with Green as a floor spacing 4.
This argument would have merit if Green were actually a good outside shooter, but nothing in his history suggests that he is. His three-point percentage has hovered around 33%, and this season is the first he's eclipsed 40% on long two-pointers. If only they could get a true power forward who could hit long jumpers at rate in the mid-forties, defend vigorously, rebound and use the word cancer in an insult with a player with alopecia.
3) It's for the future.
This is the most perplexing. Perkins is only two years older than Green. But most importantly, the trade has created a gaping problem at the center spot not only for the playoff run, but for the future. Looking beyond their aging stars, Boston's frontcourt looks like Glen Davis, a 6'8" forward who can't rebound, Jeff Green, a tweener forward who also can't rebound, Krstic, a poor defender who also can't rebound and ... well, it's not clear. Do they really think Green is the future of the Celtics? He's a poor shooter and decent defensively, but doesn't give you much else besides consistency ... he's consistently middling. Even if he turns a corner, they have a huge need at a position notoriously hard to fill.
4) They need to win now.
I'm not sure how Green and Kristic actually help Boston. Perkins was an excellent defender, crashed the boards, and protected the rim. They lose that and gain Kristic, who will drag their defense down, and Green, whose impact is not exactly as positive as people believe. He'll shoot a decent number of shots with poor to average accuracy, he won't rebound, and his defense is good but not at Perkins' level. His adjusted plus or minus numbers are devastatingly bad: -5.27 with a standard error of 2.73, which means it's statistically unlikely he has a positive impact on the team. If you're the type adverse to statistics in basketball, consider this: what's the value of a tweener forward who's too small for the 4-spot, can't rebound or block shots, doesn't hit three-pointers, and isn't a defensive stopper? He's definitely not the antidote to Lebron James. In fact, in defending both James and Wade, one would think a shot-blocker would help, but now they've lost that. Also, if they want to win now, shouldn't they be thinking about how best to match-up with the Lakers, the team to beat? What about Orlando? Green doesn't even help them against Chicago, who boasts a huge frontline and no match-ups in need of a player like him.
Looking further into the stats, Boston, despite trading a player who has been injured most of the year, has been the loser in the trade so far at 12 and 8 with Green, but in the twelve games Perkins played they were only 8 and 4. Looking at point differential, the numbers below show that Boston has played better with Perkins and worse with Green, albeit in limited minutes, while Oklahoma has also played better with Perkins and worse with Green. Some of this may a result of Boston struggling in ways unrelated to these players, but Perkins played with Boston only in 12 games right before he was traded, meaning his numbers aren't a result of playing with the Celtics during their hot streak at the start of the season. Also, Boston's point differential with Green includes a 31 murder spree against the Bucks (without that game, the differential drops to 1.8.) However, one most note that the sample size is small, but the results are interesting and warrant close future scrutiny. It's too early to tell what the effects are of having Green, Perkins or Kristic on their respective teams, but so far most measures including player plus/minus have suggested Oklahoma fleeced the Celtics.
Boston with Perkins: +5.3
Oklahoma with Perkins: +8.0
Boston with Green: +3.3
Oklahoma with Green: +3.2
The Celtics have suffered since the trade, but some of this has been overblown. They've been without Perkins for most of the season, and he's only played 11 games for the Thunder. Boston has remained an elite defensive team without him, but their offense has struggled. I'm not sure that blame can be placed on the loss of Perkins. Their offensive rebounding has been terrible, but it was also terrible last year. The rebounding is partly the result of their defensive strategy: instead of crashing the offensive boards, send guys back to snuff out transition plays. However, it is alarming that they traded a defensive big for two players in Kristic and Green who were supposed to be good offensive players, and their offense has not kicked out of the neutral position. Additionally, one cannot forget the pouting variable: Rondo, among others, was strongly against the trade and some argue much of their recent slide is a result of this collective funk, but they weren't playing much better in the games before the trade.
In looking toward the future, I believe the trade will become a sort of crossroads for the Celtics, a divergence among all the infinite possibilities that could have been. The Celtics lost a defensive stalwart and replaced him with a back-up center (Kristic) and a forward who has little evidence of being a meaningful basketball player (Green). Perkins was an absolute steal for Oklahoma, filling a real hole and rounding out their line-up, with one positive side-effect being an increase in playing time for Ibaka, who has been promoted to the starting line-up. Maybe Perkins knee problems will render Oklahoma's talent advantage moot, but the risk is acceptable because it appears Green wasn't contributing.
In sum, Boston traded one of its youngest players and best defenders in order to get younger and provide more defense, and with their championship window shrinking they have to rely on a 39 year-old, often injured center never known for his conditioning. Boston's future is relying on the assumption Jeff Green will provide valuable contributions, but the evidence is scarce that he can do so. If Ubuntu can't save the Celtics with Green, they may need to use Haitian voodoo to revive the corpse of Shaquille O'Neal. An undead hall of fame center is certainly part of a good long-term plan.
There are a few defenses of the trade, most of which make no sense:
1) Boston wants to get younger
... by trading a 26 year-old center for a 24 year-old forward and 27 year-old. Huh? Now they're reliant on an O'Neal center combination, having sent their rookie Turkish center in a separate deal, with a combined age of 71 years. While it's true Perkins has had injury problems, big defensive centers and power forwards retain their value for a long time, even when they lose much of their speed and quickness. If they wanted to get younger, maybe they should have traded one of their players struggling with baldness and bladder control.
2) They filled a hole.
So which hole did they fill? Most argued Pierce needed a quality backup and a way to defend tough wings in the playoffs like Lebron, and Jeff Green was a great solution. However, they traded their starting center for a backup in a role that doesn't really suit him. Green has only been playing around 20 minutes a game. If they wanted a big wing off the bench who could relieve pressure off of Pierce and defend some of the best players in the world, why didn't they try to get Tony Allen back? Shane Battier? Brewer? Gerald Wallace? All these players were clearly available.
3) They can play small with Green as a floor spacing 4.
This argument would have merit if Green were actually a good outside shooter, but nothing in his history suggests that he is. His three-point percentage has hovered around 33%, and this season is the first he's eclipsed 40% on long two-pointers. If only they could get a true power forward who could hit long jumpers at rate in the mid-forties, defend vigorously, rebound and use the word cancer in an insult with a player with alopecia.
3) It's for the future.
This is the most perplexing. Perkins is only two years older than Green. But most importantly, the trade has created a gaping problem at the center spot not only for the playoff run, but for the future. Looking beyond their aging stars, Boston's frontcourt looks like Glen Davis, a 6'8" forward who can't rebound, Jeff Green, a tweener forward who also can't rebound, Krstic, a poor defender who also can't rebound and ... well, it's not clear. Do they really think Green is the future of the Celtics? He's a poor shooter and decent defensively, but doesn't give you much else besides consistency ... he's consistently middling. Even if he turns a corner, they have a huge need at a position notoriously hard to fill.
4) They need to win now.
I'm not sure how Green and Kristic actually help Boston. Perkins was an excellent defender, crashed the boards, and protected the rim. They lose that and gain Kristic, who will drag their defense down, and Green, whose impact is not exactly as positive as people believe. He'll shoot a decent number of shots with poor to average accuracy, he won't rebound, and his defense is good but not at Perkins' level. His adjusted plus or minus numbers are devastatingly bad: -5.27 with a standard error of 2.73, which means it's statistically unlikely he has a positive impact on the team. If you're the type adverse to statistics in basketball, consider this: what's the value of a tweener forward who's too small for the 4-spot, can't rebound or block shots, doesn't hit three-pointers, and isn't a defensive stopper? He's definitely not the antidote to Lebron James. In fact, in defending both James and Wade, one would think a shot-blocker would help, but now they've lost that. Also, if they want to win now, shouldn't they be thinking about how best to match-up with the Lakers, the team to beat? What about Orlando? Green doesn't even help them against Chicago, who boasts a huge frontline and no match-ups in need of a player like him.
Looking further into the stats, Boston, despite trading a player who has been injured most of the year, has been the loser in the trade so far at 12 and 8 with Green, but in the twelve games Perkins played they were only 8 and 4. Looking at point differential, the numbers below show that Boston has played better with Perkins and worse with Green, albeit in limited minutes, while Oklahoma has also played better with Perkins and worse with Green. Some of this may a result of Boston struggling in ways unrelated to these players, but Perkins played with Boston only in 12 games right before he was traded, meaning his numbers aren't a result of playing with the Celtics during their hot streak at the start of the season. Also, Boston's point differential with Green includes a 31 murder spree against the Bucks (without that game, the differential drops to 1.8.) However, one most note that the sample size is small, but the results are interesting and warrant close future scrutiny. It's too early to tell what the effects are of having Green, Perkins or Kristic on their respective teams, but so far most measures including player plus/minus have suggested Oklahoma fleeced the Celtics.
Boston with Perkins: +5.3
Oklahoma with Perkins: +8.0
Boston with Green: +3.3
Oklahoma with Green: +3.2
The Celtics have suffered since the trade, but some of this has been overblown. They've been without Perkins for most of the season, and he's only played 11 games for the Thunder. Boston has remained an elite defensive team without him, but their offense has struggled. I'm not sure that blame can be placed on the loss of Perkins. Their offensive rebounding has been terrible, but it was also terrible last year. The rebounding is partly the result of their defensive strategy: instead of crashing the offensive boards, send guys back to snuff out transition plays. However, it is alarming that they traded a defensive big for two players in Kristic and Green who were supposed to be good offensive players, and their offense has not kicked out of the neutral position. Additionally, one cannot forget the pouting variable: Rondo, among others, was strongly against the trade and some argue much of their recent slide is a result of this collective funk, but they weren't playing much better in the games before the trade.
In looking toward the future, I believe the trade will become a sort of crossroads for the Celtics, a divergence among all the infinite possibilities that could have been. The Celtics lost a defensive stalwart and replaced him with a back-up center (Kristic) and a forward who has little evidence of being a meaningful basketball player (Green). Perkins was an absolute steal for Oklahoma, filling a real hole and rounding out their line-up, with one positive side-effect being an increase in playing time for Ibaka, who has been promoted to the starting line-up. Maybe Perkins knee problems will render Oklahoma's talent advantage moot, but the risk is acceptable because it appears Green wasn't contributing.
In sum, Boston traded one of its youngest players and best defenders in order to get younger and provide more defense, and with their championship window shrinking they have to rely on a 39 year-old, often injured center never known for his conditioning. Boston's future is relying on the assumption Jeff Green will provide valuable contributions, but the evidence is scarce that he can do so. If Ubuntu can't save the Celtics with Green, they may need to use Haitian voodoo to revive the corpse of Shaquille O'Neal. An undead hall of fame center is certainly part of a good long-term plan.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)