If we land CP3 and D12 to play w/ Al and sign a decent SF...

[Admin]

Wright is interesting but I can't stand Nick Young...one of the most overrated and one dimensional players in the league. He has the worst shot selection after Jordan Crawford.

I do like the idea of Barnes though and he would probably follow Paul here.

I hadn't seen a lot of Young in a while but until I looked at his stats I didn't realize how much of a negative impact on the game he has.

[NBASupes]

Adding Matt Barnes (6'7 235 lbs) to the list...

Last season .146 win shares / 48 and .105 for his career. Also a career 33% shooter from 3. He's 33 years old now so should be relatively cheap and already has chemistry with CP3 so I'd add him to the list behind the much younger Wright and Budinger, but he's probably my next option behind them.

As a starter though? He was playing in a CP3 offense, that gives him more offensively flexibility than Wright or Webster had in their respective teams. There is a reason he was signed by LAC with the vet's min and rarely started. He should be an option for the LLE if Tolliver doesn't return.

[Watchman]

"Just say no" to Nick Young. Jordan Crawford with even less of a conscience.

[Admin]

Webster had the best year last year. Budinger was hurt for half of the year and took some time to get his feel back. Wright has the offense but the defense is ???

I like Webster the most and he is why.

Offense: Webster fit his role to a T, becoming one of the league's feared outside shooters, particularly from the corners. A late slump bumped Webster down from his perch a bit, but he still finished sixth in the NBA in corner three-point percentage among players that attempted at least 50 shots. Webster was no slouch from the wings either -- he was 65th in the league in above-the-break three-point percentage among those with at least 50 shots attempted.

Webster's three-point proficiency was good enough for the Wizards to incorporate a new play into their playbook to take advantage of his shooting and John Wall's cross-court passing.

The play starts on one side with Wall running a standard angled pick and roll. Webster will stand on the opposite wing rather than the corner.

The speed pick and roll on the right side draws everyone's attention. Meanwhile, Webster will sneak to the corner.

As Webster goes to the corner, Wall will throw a cross-court pass. Meanwhile, the other big man -- Jason Collins, in this case -- will set a flare screen on Webster's man, preventing him from recovering.

The end result is a wide-open three if executed correctly.

All in all, Webster's shooting was essential to an offense that didn't have much of it from the big positions. There were games where Webster didn't make much of an impact, but he was enough of a threat to open up opportunities for others, especially after Wall's return from injury.

Defense: Webster was not a stopper by any means, but he generally worked hard and was in the right spots. The key is that he didn't do anything to mitigate the offensive advantage that playing him gives you. The Wizards were only 1.1 points worse per 100 possessionswith him out, despite the presence of Trevor Ariza.

Somehow I mixed up the numbers on Webster's 3pt shooting and had him at 30% but he's actually a 38% shooter so I'd be fine with him.

[Admin]

As a starter though? He was playing in a CP3 offense, that gives him more offensively flexibility than Wright or Webster had in their respective teams. There is a reason he was signed by LAC with the vet's min and rarely started. He should be an option for the LLE if Tolliver doesn't return.

He'd be playing in a CP3 offense here as well. There's a reason why we'd sign him over the other guys and that's because he's gonna be another vet min guy due to his age. So depending on our finances he might be the best fit. Id' rather go for the younger guys but it's all going to depend on our finances.

[JETSET]

We could land Barnes for under 1 million. It would be nice if we could land a combo of Barnes and a guy like Webster. This would solidify our wings when you add Jenkins to the mix along with Lou playing some 2 and a 1st round pick goes to a wing player.

[MaceCase]

Would prefer Wright or Webster than Barnes anyway. We aren't signing Paul or Dwight for just one year so it makes sense to have guys who won't be hampered by age 2-3 years in.

[NBASupes]

For all respective players: My favorite overall stats are from 82games.com. It exposes my views on most players better than TS% and other stats that lie about the impact of a player. This season we look at all the names mention.

Budinger had a good +1.3 simple rating which is good for a role player. He also gives up .5 more points than he scores to his opponent. His team is +2.0 better when he is on the court and they are -3.0 which gives him a +5.0 net value which is the highest on the T'Wolves. From his season review this was said:

When Budinger rejoined the team, his ability to move without the ball, to hit midrange jumpers off of flare screens and to even marginally threaten the defense from beyond the arc significantly improved the Wolves’ spacing and offensive continuity. After all, if you want to run the pick and roll, its helpful if the defense is forced to do something beyond packing five players into the paint. It was no magic bullet–certainly nothing that balanced the loss of Kevin Love–but the Wolves’ offense was noticeably better when Budinger was on the floor (about two points per 100 possessions better according to 82games).

What’s more it underscored the importance of skilled, savvy role players to a team’s makeup. When those roles go unfilled, especially a role as essential to success in the contemporary NBA as outside shooting, a team’s offensive idea collapses in on itself. You get what you saw in the Wolves this year: a team forced to improvise and scrape just to keep its head above water.

Dorrell Wright: He had a positive +0.5 simple rating which was 3rd on the 76ers and he scored 2.0 more points than he gave up. His problem was Philly was -4.8 with him on the court and -2.8 with him off the court. That tells me that he hurt the team more than helped them but the team wasn't good at all because only Jrue had a positive effect on the court for the Sixers. He probably was asked to do too much then.

Here are quotes from Philly's season review of Wright:

He wasn’t nearly as successful or valued with the Sixers. Wright started only eight of 79 games in his first season in Philadelphia. Wright shot 37.4 percent from three-point range, which was better than his career average of 36.7 percent. But his field goal percentage dipped to 39.6 percent, by far his worst mark over a full season since entering the NBA.

Wright’s efficiency rating was 161st in the NBA. While not great, it was 56 spots better than often-useless teammate Nick Young. There are several reasons for that, including Wright taking 1.6 fewer shots per game than Young (while averaging just 1.4 fewer points). Wright is also a better rebounder (he averaged 3.8 per game) and he plays some defense.

On Dorell Wright
“I’m going to continue to stay positive. I played for Pat Riley. He was always trying to test you on the mental approach to the game and made sure you stayed strong mentally.”

M. Webster had a +2.9 simple rating which is very good for a role player and 4th for the Wiz. He scored a +2.2 in the fact that he scored more than his opponent with +14.5 to -12.3. His had a -0.6 on the court but had a -4.9 off the court meaning he was valuable and his team was bad. I already posted quotes for Webster so I won't do it again.

Matt Barnes has a +0.8 simple rating which is good for a role player. He also scored more than his opponent at +16.4 to -15.6 which is +0.8 which is solid production as well. He had a positive impact on the court as he was a +6.7 to a +6.1 which gave him a net of 0.6 which is 5th on the Clippers which shows his team was very good.

Is there anyone I am missing? Oh Korver.

Korver is seen as the best role player in the NBA by many teams and will be one of the hottest MLE to 7 million players in free agency this year (could take less to play for a winner) and his stats on 82games.com tells why. he scored +14.7 to -13.1 which is a net of +1.6 which is very good for a role player. His on the court off the court value was the biggest. He had a +4.2 on the court and off the Hawks were -4.6 and had a +8.8 net which was best on the Hawks and is one the best in the NBA. His simple rating was +4.0 which was 2nd on the Hawks roster and excellent for a good player much less a role player like Korver. It is clear if Jenkins is going to replace Korver he will have to make vast improvements and get around the right personnel but Korver is really a gem for the Hawks and would be much better fit to be the starting SG than Jenkins would be by a country mile.

Problem is, Korver is better at SG in the East than SF once the playoffs arrive.

Edited June 7, 2013 by Leadership

[Admin]

Would prefer Wright or Webster than Barnes anyway. We aren't signing Paul or Dwight for just one year so it makes sense to have guys who won't be hampered by age 2-3 years in.

Let's just hope that they'll sign reasonable deals and that we'll have the money to make those deals.

[Admin]

For all respective players: My favorite overall stats are from 82games.com. It exposes my views on most players better than TS% and other stats that lie about the impact of a player. This season we look at all the names mention.

Budinger had a good +1.3 simple rating which is good for a role player. He also gives up .5 more points than he scores to his opponent. His team is +2.0 better when he is on the court and they are -3.0 which gives him a +5.0 net value which is the highest on the T'Wolves. From his season review this was said:

Dorrell Wright: He had a positive +0.5 simple rating which was 3rd on the 76ers and he scored 2.0 more points than he gave up. His problem was Philly was -4.8 with him on the court and -2.8 with him off the court. That tells me that he hurt the team more than helped them but the team wasn't good at all because only Jrue had a positive effect on the court for the Sixers. He probably was asked to do too much then.

Here are quotes from Philly's season review of Wright:

M. Webster had a +2.9 simple rating which is very good for a role player and 4th for the Wiz. He scored a +2.2 in the fact that he scored more than his opponent with +14.5 to -12.3. His had a -0.6 on the court but had a -4.9 off the court meaning he was valuable and his team was bad. I already posted quotes for Webster so I won't do it again.

Matt Barnes has a +0.8 simple rating which is good for a role player. He also scored more than his opponent at +16.4 to -15.6 which is +0.8 which is solid production as well. He had a positive impact on the court as he was a +6.7 to a +6.1 which gave him a net of 0.6 which is 5th on the Clippers which shows his team was very good.

Is there anyone I am missing? Oh Korver.

Korver is seen as the best role player in the NBA by many teams and will be one of the hottest MLE to 7 million players in free agency this year (could take less to play for a winner) and his stats on 82games.com tells why. he scored +14.7 to -13.1 which is a net of +1.6 which is very good for a role player. His on the court off the court value was the biggest. He had a +4.2 on the court and off the Hawks were -4.6 and had a +8.8 net which was best on the Hawks and is one the best in the NBA. His simple rating was +4.0 which was 2nd on the Hawks roster and excellent for a good player much less a role player like Korver. It is clear if Jenkins is going to replace Korver he will have to make vast improvements and get around the right personnel but Korver is really a gem for the Hawks and would be much better fit to be the starting SG than Jenkins would be by a country mile.

Problem is, Korver is better at SG in the East than SF once the playoffs arrive.

Simple Rating doesn't expose Win Shares / 48. It's just another advanced stat that some may prefer while others may prefer the WS48. I find it kind of funny though that you think WS48 is a lie while believing in simple rating.

[NBASupes]

Simple Rating doesn't expose Win Shares / 48. It's just another advanced stat that some may prefer while others may prefer the WS48. I find it kind of funny though that you think WS48 is a lie while believing in simple rating.

I prefer 82games.com because it stacks up to what I watch moreso than anything else. Look at this:

I watch Al Jefferson and I think is a near negative player most nights and is overpaid. His win shares says he is 7.7

which is very good.

So it makes my point him being overrating and a near negative player and an overpaid one a moot point.

His simple rating and 82games stats backs my beliefs from watching his games up. Has a +22.0 to -17.4 for a +4.6 net for offense which I agree. He normally out produces his opponent. Has a -3.0 on the court to a +5.0 when off it giving a net of -8.2 and a simple rating of +0.3 which is decent for a role player but horrible for a #1 option and someone being paid more 8 million dollars a year. Completely backing my views on Jefferson.

James Harden is another one. Russell Westbrook is one I am more positive about and these ratings back me up. I watch the games. WS, TS% really don't tell me if the player plays winning Basketball. Harden's team plays better with him off the court than on it even though he outscores his opponent at an extremely high clip. Westbrook team is much better with him on the court than off it. Harden as a 6th man had a positive on and off rating but his role was more different and he's not a championship player to be honest. He is a player who is probably best on a average team chucking shots or a great team coming off the bench. He doesn't play championship Basketball.

Edited June 7, 2013 by Leadership

[Admin]

I prefer 82games.com because it stacks up to what I watch moreso than anything else. Look at this:

I watch Al Jefferson and I think is a near negative player most nights and is overpaid. His win shares says he is 7.7

which is very good.

So it makes my point him being overrating and a near negative player and an overpaid one a moot point.

His simple rating and 82games stats backs my beliefs from watching his games up. Has a +22.0 to -17.4 for a +4.6 net for offense which I agree. He normally out produces his opponent. Has a -3.0 on the court to a +5.0 when off it giving a net of -8.2 and a simple rating of +0.3 which is decent for a role player but horrible for a #1 option and someone being paid more 8 million dollars a year. Completely backing my views on Jefferson.

James Harden is another one. Russell Westbrook is one I am more positive about and these ratings back me up. I watch the games. WS, TS% really don't tell me if the player plays winning Basketball. Harden's team plays better with him off the court than on it even though he outscores his opponent at an extremely high clip. Westbrook team is much better with him on the court than off it. Harden as a 6th man had a positive on and off rating but his role was more different and he's not a championship player to be honest. He is a player who is probably best on a average team chucking shots or a great team coming off the bench. He doesn't play championship Basketball.

Win Shares Per 48 is a good metric and .100 is league average. Al Jefferson is a .129 for his career and was .143 last year. Dwight Howard was a .134 last year and a .181 for his career. I think most people would agree that Dwight had a very poor year last year in relation to his career while Jefferson was a little better than his career average. Seems about right to me.

Simple rating is something that 82games.com created and they are the only ones who use it. I think there's a reason for that.

Bottom line is that you're going to use the metric that gives you the conclusion that you're looking for. For you that's simple rating and that's fine, but just because it agrees with you doesn't mean that it's the best.

[capstone21]

I hadn't seen a lot of Young in a while but until I looked at his stats I didn't realize how much of a negative impact on the game he has.

Yeah, he doesn't play d, he doesn't pass, he doesn't rebound...he just shoots really poor shots.

[Guest]

Very true. The problem will come when you have to play Lebron and Melo. That's where you need just a decent SF. A Bruce Bowen type would be great for us. That's why I want Brandon Rush the most.

I don't know much about Brandon Rush's defense but he is coming off ACL surgery. Do we really need two guys coming off ACL's (Lou.)?

[Dragitoff]

You also have to factor in the system and surrounding players each player plays with. A guy who is the #1 option like Jefferson in the post needs good shooters and cutters to help him out offensively. Who did Utah have to do either of those? Using the same example, a guy with defensive weaknesses needs to be surrounded with good defenders to minimize his deficiencies. Who on Utah was an above average defender either on the outside or inside? That's where the one test not listed in previous threads kicks in....the common sense test. I leave those decisions up to the coaches and scouts of the teams because it's obvious most of us lack when it comes to judging that area (and I include myself in that)

[Admin]

Yeah, he doesn't play d, he doesn't pass, he doesn't rebound...he just shoots really poor shots.

Definitely not a fit for this team then. About the only thing he does well is shoot the 3 and that's definitely not enough to justify signing him.

[NBASupes]

You also have to factor in the system and surrounding players each player plays with. A guy who is the #1 option like Jefferson in the post needs good shooters and cutters to help him out offensively. Who did Utah have to do either of those? Using the same example, a guy with defensive weaknesses needs to be surrounded with good defenders to minimize his deficiencies. Who on Utah was an above average defender either on the outside or inside? That's where the one test not listed in previous threads kicks in....the common sense test. I leave those decisions up to the coaches and scouts of the teams because it's obvious most of us lack when it comes to judging that area (and I include myself in that)

Jefferson needs a true center who can score when needed and can pass the rock and he also needs an defensive minded guards who could defend at a plus rate to cover for Jefferson's lack of defensive skills. He is just like Z-bo to me but he is better scoring and worse passer than Z-Bo. You are trying to make Jefferson into a Dwight Howard type, no no no. He is far from Dwight. Dwight is not the scorer that Jefferson is nor will he ever be but he is a better passer, has superior physical tools, is an elite defender, and is an elite rebounder. One is not the other. Dwight is one of the best finishers in NBA history, Jefferson is just an average finisher for his position. One is not the other.

[Dragitoff]

Jefferson needs a true center who can score when needed and can pass the rock and he also needs an defensive minded guards who could defend at a plus rate to cover for Jefferson's lack of defensive skills. He is just like Z-bo to me but he is better scoring and worse passer than Z-Bo. You are trying to make Jefferson into a Dwight Howard type, no no no. He is far from Dwight. Dwight is not the scorer that Jefferson is nor will he ever be but he is a better passer, has superior physical tools, is an elite defender, and is an elite rebounder. One is not the other. Dwight is one of the best finishers in NBA history, Jefferson is just an average finisher for his position. One is not the other.

I wasn't trying to make Jefferson comparable to Dwight. I think Jefferson is an elite post scorer with better post moves than Dwight, but he's not a game changer like Dwight. Dwight can hurt you offensively, defensively, on the boards, and even hurt his own team by FT's and TO's. He's a guy you build a gameplan around if your the opposition and your offense around if he's on your team. I was merely stating everyone keeps throwing out these statistics for various players that may or may not necessarily be a true barometer of how they'll work here. If we're sticking to a San Antonio South theme, look at all the players who went to San Antonio and fit well becuase they fit the system. They didn't just bring in random players and pray it worked because each player had skills. They brought in specific guys to fit defined roles. They didn't make the system fit the players, they got the players that fit their system. Sometimes guys like that don't excel somewhere and it just happens to click when they get to a good system for their talents and the players surrounding them. They move on later only to struggle to maintain and find that same level of success somewhere else.

[NBASupes]

I wasn't trying to make Jefferson comparable to Dwight. I think Jefferson is an elite post scorer with better post moves than Dwight, but he's not a game changer like Dwight. Dwight can hurt you offensively, defensively, on the boards, and even hurt his own team by FT's and TO's. He's a guy you build a gameplan around if your the opposition and your offense around if he's on your team. I was merely stating everyone keeps throwing out these statistics for various players that may or may not necessarily be a true barometer of how they'll work here. If we're sticking to a San Antonio South theme, look at all the players who went to San Antonio and fit well becuase they fit the system. They didn't just bring in random players and pray it worked because each player had skills. They brought in specific guys to fit defined roles. They didn't make the system fit the players, they got the players that fit their system. Sometimes guys like that don't excel somewhere and it just happens to click when they get to a good system for their talents and the players surrounding them. They move on later only to struggle to maintain and find that same level of success somewhere else.

Dwight can only limit you offensively if you lack spacing and player movement and even that is only to a degree. Since any smart organization would put that around Dwight he could have a positive impact offensively. Even without spacing or player movement, Dwight is still give you a very positive value on offense. With spacing and player movement with even mediocre talent around him, he gives you elite production easily making him the 2nd best player in the NBA next to Lebron.

Jefferson is an great low post scorer as he has a lot of moves, understands positioning, and he is very crafty.

Dwight is a player without a question, you can build an offense around. Where in the hell did you get the idea you couldn't build an offense around Dwight? He is automatic double team. He does a great job using his strengths and his explosiveness is second to none as well as his BBIQ. His issue is he can think too much on the court and not let the game come to him. You don't win 50 games each year and get to the NBA Finals if you don't have a guy who you can build your offense around.

San Antonio works because they have Tim Duncan. It's simple as that. Everyone plays a role and Tim can do anything you want. Now Tim can do that Dwight can't but you can build a team around Dwight but you must have 3 point shooters to space the floor out and a PF who can draw his man out of the low post and is quick enough to make the defender pay if he is sitting on Dwight. Parker development has been great but Tim's presence makes it easier to grow as a player. Just that simple.

You are complaining about turnovers but has always been very high and his FT% has been low yet he's been extremely effective offensively. You have to give or take.

Edited June 7, 2013 by Leadership

[Dragitoff]

Dwight can only limit you offensively if you lack spacing and player movement and even that is only to a degree. Since any smart organization would put that around Dwight he could have a positive impact offensively. Even without spacing or player movement, Dwight is still give you a very positive value on offense. With spacing and player movement with even mediocre talent around him, he gives you elite production easily making him the 2nd best player in the NBA next to Lebron.

Jefferson is an great low post scorer as he has a lot of moves, understands positioning, and he is very crafty.

Dwight is a player without a question, you can build an offense around. Where in the hell did you get the idea you couldn't build an offense around Dwight? He is automatic double team. He does a great job using his strengths and his explosiveness is second to none as well as his BBIQ. His issue is he can think too much on the court and not let the game come to him. You don't win 50 games each year and get to the NBA Finals if you don't have a guy who you can build your offense around.

San Antonio works because they have Tim Duncan. It's simple as that. Everyone plays a role and Tim can do anything you want. Now Tim can do that Dwight can't but you can build a team around Dwight but you must have 3 point shooters to space the floor out and a PF who can draw his man out of the low post and is quick enough to make the defender pay if he is sitting on Dwight. Parker development has been great but Tim's presence makes it easier to grow as a player. Just that simple.

You are complaining about turnovers but has always been very high and his FT% has been low yet he's been extremely effective offensively. You have to give or take.

You are misquoting me alot. I never said you couldn't build an offense around Dwight. As a matter of fact I stated the exact opposite! I also never tried to say Jefferson was Dwight's equal. You somehow came to that conclusion that's the point I was trying to make when in fact it wasn't.

Sure, you have to give alot of the credit of San Antonio's sustained success to Duncan, Parker, and even Ginobli to a lesser degree, but you cannot discount Pop's system and coaching and management getting on board with that system to bring in the guys that would fit that system perfectly. At least 2 of their Big 3, if not all 3 are HOF players, but how much of their talents are attributed to the players and how much is attributed to the system. I'd say there is a balance there. Surround those same 3 guys with guys who can't hit the 3 or defend and see if their numbers don't take a hit for it.

That's the point I was trying to make in all this. Right players with the right roles in the right systems with the right supporting cast often make up for lesser talent. Elite talent in with all those other factors considered in your favor usually ends up in a championship. Paul, Horford, and Dwight are not guaranteed a title just by signing them (Dwight and Paul as being the new signies obviously), but surrounding them with the right guys will certainly tilt the odds in their favor (not a Hunger Games reference I promise).

Stats are great, but we can't solely rely on stats for everything. You have to take other factors in consderation. Each household should have a monthly budget. Too bad our government doesn't, but that's for another board. According to my monthly budget, I may have an extra $200 to blow this month for whatever I want. When you get to the end of the month, you are short $300 for paying your bills. That's a net change of $500. Where did the money go?!?!?!? It wasn't that the money wasn't valued properly. It wasn't you didn't budget correctly. Why didn't it work. When you break it down, you realize, my A/C went down and the repair bill was $300. I had a blowout on the way to work and the new tire was $150 and one of the kids got sick and the doc visit was $50.

There are always other factors that common sense will show you. Had the Lakers used common sense before signing Nash and hiring D'Antoni, they would have known something wasn't going to work right. They had the wrong personel for the coach they brought in. Nash is a D'Antoni guy, but Kobe needs the ball in his hands to be effective. That lessened Nash's value to nothing more than a spot up shooter which is severely underutilizing his skills even though he's an outstanding spot up shooter, possibly one of the best in the game today. Really Nash was the only guy that fit D'Antoni's system and he got fewer touches by % than probably any other starting PG in the league.

I have faith that no matter who Ferry and Bud bring in, they will be brought in to fit the system and mold they are trying to create. You want ball movement and spacing. I think CP3 and D12 are excellent for that type of offense and certainly give us a great chance to win and win now! Do I think they are the only option? Probably not; however it's hard to win in the NBA without legitimate starS (plural).