The Suns are setting. Across the past four seasons the Phoenix Suns have averaged 58 regular season wins a year. After 47 games in 2008-09 the team has only won 26 times. This puts the Sun on pace to only win 45 games. All NBA observers can see this record and I think all can agree that Phoenix is not what it was last year. The question, though, is why.
Avoiding Blame
When an organization declines outside the world of sports it’s easy for everyone to make excuses. The workers blame management. Management blames workers. And both might blame the economy. The lack of data on performance, though, allows everyone to deny responsibility.
It’s a different story in sports. At least, it can be if we pay attention to performance.
Currently the Phoenix Suns are acting like performance data, though, doesn’t exist. Explanations for this team’s decline tend to focus on team chemistry. Although such an explanation may be valid (probably not, but we can pretend), it avoids assigning responsibility to any specific individual. Such an approach certainly avoids making any individual unhappy, but it likely prevents Phoenix from finding a solution. After all, how does one fix “chemistry”? And when does one know it’s fixed?
Assigning Blame
Fortunately for the Suns, performance data does exist in basketball. And that data clearly points the finger of blame at one specific individual.
Table One: The Phoenix Suns after 47 games in 2008-09
Table One reports two forecasts of the Phoenix Suns. The first looks at the number of wins this team could expect given what their players did last year. The second looks at the number of wins given what the players are doing this year. As one can see, the difference in these two perspectives is about 17 wins. And more than ten of these lost victories can be tied to changes in the play of Amare Stoudemire. In other words, if Stoudemire was performing as he did last year, the Suns would be on pace to win 55 games. Such a mark would be fall short of where the Lakers are, but certainly could be good enough to challenge for second in the conference (and with the injury to Andrew Bynum, second might be good place to be in the West).
Stoudemire, though, is not performing as he did last year. Last year he posted a 0.291 WP48 [Wins Produced per 48 minute]. Of the 129 players who played at least 2,000 minutes in 2007-08, Stoudemire ranked 12th in WP48. So Stoudemire was an elite player.
This year his WP48 is only 0.123. This mark would have ranked 73rd last year. Again, the population of players with more than 2,000 minutes is 129. So Stoudemire’s performance this year is below average (average in that sample is 0.142). At least, below average for the players who get the most minutes.
Athletes are taught that teams wins and lose together. Such a focus avoids the assignment of blame and treats all players as equally important. But clearly this is a myth. Some players are just much more productive than others.
Last season Stoudemire was one of those players who was “much more productive than others.” And consequently, he deserved a great deal of credit for the team’s success. This year, though, he’s not offering the same level of production. Consequently, he deserves much of the blame.
Explaining the Blame or Blaming the Vain
People have argued that part of the problem in Phoenix has been the change in coaches. The new coach, Terry Porter, has emphasized defense (and therefore, de-emphasized offense). Certainly both Steve Nash and Stoudemire are offering less under Porter. But looking back at Table One we see the other players on the team are offering about the same. In other words, I am not convinced this is coaching.
No, I think this is mostly about Stoudemire. And when we look at Table Two, we can see where Stoudemire has declined.
Table Two: Evaluating Amare Stoudemire
A few days ago I noted the specific issues with Stoudemire. First of all – as Table Two notes — his scoring has declined. This decline is caused by drop-offs in both shooting efficiency and shot attempts. Certainly the decline in scoring is part of the problem. Apparently, though, another big part of the problem is how Stoudemire has reacted to his declining point totals. The story people tell is that Stoudemire is motivated by his point production. When he gets as many chances to score as he likes, he’s motivated to rebound, blocked shots, and avoid turnovers. When he doesn’t score as much as he likes, these other aspects of the game get ignored.
In sum, people are arguing the vanity of Stoudemire is causing him to choose to offer less. And this choice is a big reason why Phoenix is not contending.
As a consequence, it’s now reported (by Adrian Wojnarowski of Yahoo!Sports) that Phoenix is contemplating sending Stoudemire to another destination. If Stoudemire was offering what he did last year, such a trade would seem like a bad idea. After all, it’s difficult to find a player who can rank in the top 15 in the league. But if the Stoudemire of last year is lost to Phoenix – and that looks to be the case – a trade might be a very good idea. Remember, Stoudemire is still an above average scorer. So he should be able to fetch more production than he’s offering the Suns right now.
Although such a trade may not be welcomed by fans of this team, it may be the best move for this franchise to make. After all, once you we have assigned blame for an outcome, the next step is to impose consequences. And when a player puts his scoring ahead of winning, it’s probably time for the team to move on.
– DJ
The WoW Journal Comments Policy
Our research on the NBA was summarized HERE.
The Technical Notes at wagesofwins.com provides substantially more information on the published research behind Wins Produced and Win Score
Wins Produced, Win Score, and PAWSmin are also discussed in the following posts:
Simple Models of Player Performance
What Wins Produced Says and What It Does Not Say
Introducing PAWSmin — and a Defense of Box Score Statistics
Finally, A Guide to Evaluating Models contains useful hints on how to interpret and evaluate statistical models.
Wages of Wins Journal 
Brett
February 5, 2009
“other players on the team are offering about the same. In other words, I am not convinced this is coaching. ”
A coaches affect on a team is hard to judge, but it seems likely to me that a new coach with a new system could put different players in positions to make plays, leading to declines for some but not others.
I also haven’t seen a Sun’s game this year, so maybe Amare is just dogging it, as you imply.
dberri
February 5, 2009
Brett,
Stoudemire seems to blame the system for his decline in shot attempts (although I think he still leads the team). And although that might be true, the system does not explain why he is rebounding less and blocking fewer shots. That seems to be explained by a lack of effort on his part.
kevin
February 6, 2009
What the system does is expose Stoudemire’s lack of a fully developed game. With Shaq in there, it clogs the middle on him and he needs a open middle to be effective. He lacks the perimeter skills to adapt to the changed conditions on his team. And he’s not good enough to be the alpha dog on a legitimate title contender.
he should stop whining so much and work on his shooting, passing and ballhandling skills. If he solves those problems and the Suns still stink, then he has a right to complain.
Italian Stallion
February 6, 2009
I believe what Kevin is talking about is what people are referring to when they talk about team chemistry.
Some combinations of players can impact the stats of some players differently than others (especially within a different system).
IMO, having the middle clogged up by Shaq is a clear cut negative for Amare on offense and probably also impacts his rebounds negatively by a hair. Part of the reason Shaq was brought in was to rebound, block shots etc..
His blocked shots are down quite a bit, but they aren’t down much off his career average. Last year was the upside aberration.
Also, some of his stats are down because of pace.
It might be interesting to see Amare’s stats with Shaq out of the game. The sample size would be pretty small, but it might shed some light on the situation. Perhaps we could look at this year and a combination of this year and last year.
Daniel
February 6, 2009
The “Shaw clogs the middle” theory has one small flaw. Amare played the best basketball of his life after the Shaq trade. Shaq wasn’t as good as Marion, so the Suns declined, but Amare’s increased production nearly made up for the gap between Shaq and Marion anyways.
Oren
February 6, 2009
It would be interesting to see how Stoudamire did last year before the Shaq trade and after the Shaq trade.
Horsecow
February 6, 2009
I think this is a case where the stats simply don’t tell the whole story (and can’t). Take an Occam’s razor approach to this: what has changed since Amare’s great production of the last few years and his mediocre production of this year? Has he become a more selfish player? It’s possible, but I doubt it. He’s probably always been selfish. Have his skills/athletic abilities gotten worse? Not that I have noticed. What’s left? Three things: the Shaquille O’Neal trade, Mike D’Antoni’s departure and Terry Porter’s arrival. Prof. Berri seems to want to heap all the blame on Stoudemire’s shoulders, but I think we have to look at coaching here. Not all coaches are the same, and some are just plain bad. Players don’t just magically coalesce as a sum of their WP — they have to be organized productively. The Suns have been very poorly organized this year. That has clearly frustrated Stoudemire and he’s playing like a pissed-off little kid, which is obnoxious on his part, but it’s not the Suns’ biggest problem. Their biggest problem is that they have assembled a team of all offensive players, so their defense is bad, and then they run their offense through maybe their third or fourth most-productive offensive player (O’Neal). If the Suns trade Stoudemire I predict they will regret it. Some players are selfish but insanely talented, a la Manny Ramirez, and it’s dangerous to let them walk away.
Westy
February 6, 2009
Remember, Stoudemire is still an above average scorer. So he should be able to fetch more production than he’s offering the Suns right now.
This, of course, assumes that they’re still able to find a team to trade with who overvalues scoring. I think those are becoming far fewer fast.
As Kevin Pelton noted in his excellent article yesterday, placing under the “Five Largest NBA Changes During the [last] Decade” this item: 5. Development of an APBRmetrics community, with teams embracing statistical analysis.
Horsecow
February 6, 2009
Here are some figures to compare this year and last year in terms of how D’Antoni/Porter have tried to distribute shots to Stoudemire/O’Neal/Nash:
March-April 2008:
Stoudemire: 29.8 pts/g, 26.9 FGA+FTA/g
Nash: 16.3 pts/g, 14.3 FGA+FTA/g
O’Neal: 13.2 pts/g, 14.1 FGA+FTA/g
2008-2009 season:
Stoudemire: 21 pts/g, 21.1 FGA+FTA/g
Nash: 14 pts/g, 13.1 FGA+FTA/g
O’Neal: 17.8 pts/g, 18.5 FGA+FTA/g
In total, the Suns were getting 1.07 pts/(FGA+FTA) last year, and are getting 1.00 this year. They’ve taken about 7 shots per game from Nash and Stoudemire and given 4.5 shots per game more to O’Neal. Note that Nash and Stoudemire both scored above 1 pt/FGA+FTA last year and continue to this year (okay, Stoudemire is a hair below but close), while O’Neal was and is well below 1 pt/FGA+FTA.
This is just the offensive side, but I think it’s clear that the Suns coaching staff has made a decision to give Shaq relatively more shots, and that Shaq is the less-efficient offensive player.
Todd
February 6, 2009
it seems to me, the system could reduce his shot attempts as well as his rebounding opportunities. A new system that has a power forward do more work on the perimeter will surely cause his rebounding to go down. In addition, if he has to do more work on the perimeter, his field goal percentage should go down as well. I don’t know if this is the case because I haven’t watched or studied the Suns much, but it certainly seems possible that the system is causing these stats to go down.
Andy
February 6, 2009
My first post here, and I’d like to quickly thank dberri, as this is a wonderful site. But, because I like it so much, I must take it to task.
You are correct in your assertion made in your response here that Amare is dogging it. But fans aren’t the only people who over-value scoring. Amare’s always been whiny in my opinion (in the interest of full disclosure I’m a Laker fan) and so now he’s whining about his reduced role and giving it less than his all.
As for the big picture, I agree with Horsecow, D’Antoni’s departure had a huge effect on Amare, and Nash as well. Last season Shaq not only did not clog the lane for Amare, D’Antoni found a way to use him to create even more space, leading Amare to score with astounding efficency. This year he is scoring both less in terms of volume and efficiency. Amare’s strength was never on defense or even rebounding, and Kerr should be acquiring players to help cover his deficiencies, Shaq and Richardson not being very useful in those areas either. Instead Kerr removed the coach who made Nash and Amare into superstars in favor of one who has crippled the offense, and even weakened the defense!
Lastly, I would like to take a moment for some tacky self-promotion. I sincerely apologize if this is poor blog etiquette, but I’m honestly ignorant as to the protocol on such things. I recently started a basketball blog,and my overly lengthy opinion on the state of the Suns can be found here: http://hoopscanmatter.blogspot.com/2009/02/phoenix-is-steve-kerr-next-isiah-thomas.html
Golden Graham
February 7, 2009
Different offensive and defensive schemes benefit different sets of players. Some can adapt their games easily, others cannot. Perhaps you should be moreopen to the notion that coaching can have a large effect on certain players like Amare who get a lot of easy baskets in the open court, or players like Steve Nash who get a lot of assists in the open court.
It’s plain as day that a big lumbering guy like Shaq will excel in the half court (which is the system Terry Porter has employed) while players like Nash and Stoudemire will excel in the full court (which is what D’Antoni preaches).
Simply plugging a player’s stats into your formula and coming to conclusions without watching the game makes for useless analysis in situations like these, particularly when you’re incapable of breaking from your previous conclusion that coaching is not a determining factor in player performance.
The truth is somewhere in the middle: Amare’s struggling because the system sucks, and Amare’s amplifying those struggles by having a bad attitude and not trying his hardest. Both he and Nash have come out against Porter to the press, and recently he’s started criticizing his teammates as well.
Porter’s a lousy coach who isn’t utilizing all of his player’s effectively, and Amare’s unprofessional.
Golden Graham
February 7, 2009
“Instead Kerr removed the coach who made Nash and Amare into superstars in favor of one who has crippled the offense, and even weakened the defense!”
The Phoenix Suns of old never played much defense, but their outstanding offense made up for it by limiting defensive rebounds and fast break opportunities for the other team. Isn’t it ironic how Mr. Pringles, who once asked his players to play the zone “like how you did in college – remember?” during a game, actually coached a more defensively sound team than Porter, who can’t stop talking about defense?
What a sad situation. The Suns have gone from a team with title aspirations, the most electric offense in the lead, and the most dangerous pair of players in the league to a half court team with a stagnant offense and a lousy defense.
Nick
February 7, 2009
Okay,
The Suns have problems. A “stagnant” offense is not one of them. They still score the third most points in the league and have the league’s highest FG%. Is their offense worse than it used to be? Yes, they turn the ball over too much now.
But to call it “stagnant” is a little silly.
Tommy_Grand
February 7, 2009
I agree with the professor’s analysis. It might be the right decision to make a trade. But if the suns trade Amare for less than a top 20 player, or maybe top 30 plus a lottery pick, that’s stupid.
stephanie
February 7, 2009
Amare scored a lot of his points off pick and rolls with Nash. They don’t run very many pick and rolls with him and Nash anymore. So his scoring has gone from ridiculous to just very good. He clearly looks lost out there.
The thing is though, I don’t understand how Amare doesn’t play off of Shaq. Shaq is a solid passer, attracts double teams, and Amare’s freakish athleticism means he should be hoovering in rebounds off Shaq misses. That should be a devastating one-two inside punch. Then again, given Amare’ s physical tools I don’t understand why he’s not an elite rebounder or defender anyway. He even said in interviews over the summer he wanted to be a “monster” defender. Too bad for Phoenix.
Peter
February 7, 2009
If anything, he has regressed in his defense, which wasn’t what it could have been to begin with.
And the ultimate irony, one that Stoudemire has not realized, is that good defense helps make offense that much easier.
Ironically, as Golden Graham pointed out, Phoenix got worse on both offense AND defense after D’Antoni left for New York. The Shaq-Marion trade played a huge part in that.
Dannie
February 7, 2009
Horsecow:
“they run their offense through maybe their third or fourth most-productive offensive player (O’Neal)”
How do you figure this statement to be accurate? How do you define productivity on offense?
Shaq:
FG% – 59%
eFG% – 59%
TS% – 61.5%
PPS (berri way – no FTs) – 1.18
PPS (including FTs) – 1.58
All of which lead the Suns. Looks to me they are running their offense through the MOST PRODUCTIVE offense player.
Peter
February 7, 2009
I just got word that the Lakers made a trade, that in the words of Chris Berman, is “veddy, veddy intuhresting”
I am not making this up: The Lakers just got Adam Morrison and Shannon Brown for Vlad Radmanovic.
Quick look at WP48’s through the first half of this season:
Lakers get:
Morrison: -.063 WP48
Brown: -.012 WP48
Bobcats get:
Radmanovic: .105 WP48
This trade makes absolutely no sense for LA.
First off, they were already a championship contender before the trade; they did not need to make a splash like they did last season.
Second, their primary need wasn’t three-point shooting, it was a big man who could provide an inside presence and shift Pau Gasol back to power forward.
Third, Morrison’s career 33.7% 3-point average and Brown’s 28.9% are not eye-popping numbers by any stretch of the imagination. Radmanovic’s 38.6% career and 44.1% season averages were much, much better.
Fourth, even in college, neither Morrison nor Brown showed the versatility needed to succeed in Phil Jackson’s triangle offense.
Was that REALLY the best you could do, Mitch Kupchak? Even Tyronn Lue for Keith Bogans was a better trade than this.
Simon
February 7, 2009
Peter, I don’t think any trade in today’s NBA happens for talents exchanged alone. Almost every trade occurs because one side wants to lose a long-term salary, making observers wonders why they signed the player to that long-term contract in the first place. This is also the case with Lakers trying to lose Rad’s contract.
Speaking of the 3-point average, it’s interesting to note three most prolific long range shooters in recent NCAA memories – Morrison, Stoudamire and JJ-have all struggled in the NBA in terms of shooting percentage.
Peter
February 7, 2009
Still, doesn’t the move seem at least a little suspect for the Lakers’ title chances?
Realistically, four teams have a shot at the championship. Three of those are in the Eastern Conference. That means that the Lakers are still Western Conference finalists at worst.
The Celtics are the defending champs, the Cavaliers have become much more dangerous than in seasons past, and the Magic have a center that can make their life on the defensive end absolutely miserable.
As an outsider, something doesn’t seem quite right about the trade. Maybe they’re thinking about opening up space to resign Lamar Odom or Kobe Bryant. Or maybe they want to make a run at Shawn Marion or Andre Miller.
But in the wake of the Bynum injury, the Lakers are treading dangerous waters, at least in this season. And while Kupchak should get a lot of credit for swindling Pau Gasol and making the Lakers NBA finalists last season, he also deserves at least a share of the blame if the trade does not pan out as he envisioned.
PJ
February 7, 2009
Yes, that trade is about Vlad’s salary — specifically, I suspect, how it affects LA’s ability to sign players next year. Especially given the emergence of Ariza, but also just given the general mediocre nature of Vlad’s performance, I highly doubt any observer will look on LA’s season and say, if they failed to win the championship, “Really should have kept Radmanovic.” And Morrison and Brown will not see significant time.
Peter
February 7, 2009
Thanks, PJ, it really does make a lot more sense now.
One final complaint I have, however, and this is going to be the last one, was that Kupchak did not try to acquire a tough guy off the bench. They could have really used that without Bynum.
Peter
February 7, 2009
I did not know about the salary situation when I first heard of the trade. That was part of the reason why I was not on the exchange.
Johnny
February 8, 2009
I know you guy believe that coaching has a very small effect on how players perform, but I can’t seem to get over the fact that coaching is the biggest factor in the decline of the suns. (not the only factor, cause its obvious now that Amare is dogging it a bit)
How about a post on New york under D’antoni and what i suspect is a large increase in production in Duhon/Lee. Or a post of post shaq trade w/ D’antoni vs with Porter?
Plus you mentioned in the post that “The new coach, Terry Porter, has emphasized defense (and therefore, de-emphasized offense). Certainly both Steve Nash and Stoudemire are offering less under Porter. But looking back at Table One we see the other players on the team are offering about the same. In other words, I am not convinced this is coaching. ”
But in many other posts you mention how a team’s win total is almost entirely dictated by its 3 most productive stars, and when 2 of the 3 take big hits like that from only coaching change, I’d have to suspect that its an important factor even considering the fact that the support players production didn’t change much.
Owen
February 8, 2009
“How about a post on New york under D’antoni and what i suspect is a large increase in production in Duhon/Lee.”
There has been no increase really. Lee played better two years ago under Isaiah. And Duhon, after a bunch of poor performances lately, is probably back to the level he showed in Chicago.
But they are playing more minutes. That is one good decision D’Antoni has made regarding Lee…
Italian Stallion
February 8, 2009
Owen,
You keep saying that, but it’s not exactly true.
I agree that Lee was more productive in his 2nd season than last year and he is getting more minutes now. But he started this year off very slowly. Some people were even saying he had regressed even further from his second year. Of course, at the time he was battling bone spurs and was playing along side Randolph just like last year.
I think once he got healthy and the trade was made, few would argue about his productivity increasing.
Even from a non-statistical perspective one could argue he’s never been more comfortable taking outside shots and has been running the pick and roll as well as almost anyone in the league. He’s clearly peaking as a playerright now even if his annual stats fail to show that right now and minutes/pace are part of it.
Golden Graham
February 8, 2009
It would also be interesting to compare Chris Bosh’s stats under Sam Mitchell to Bosh’s stats under Triano. Mitchell ran the high pick and roll constantly, and as a result, Calderon and Bosh flourished. Since moving away from that play under Triano, both Bosh and Calderon have been struggling comparatively — wasn’t Calderon’s WP48 over .300 last year? And I recall Bosh’s being a bit higher too (he certainly started off the season doing much better).
I think the argument that NBA coaches, in general, offer a fairly consistent level of quality that does not dramatically effect most players’ per minute production is accurate. I simply disagree with the extent that you apply that conclusion.
I am looking forward to you next book, which I hope will expand on your previous conclusions to provide a more accurate, balanced picture of what’s going on in the NBA.
Horsecow
February 9, 2009
OK, this discussion may be dead and gone, but I would like to respond to Dannie, who cited these numbers for Shaquille O’Neal:
PPS (berri way – no FTs) – 1.18
PPS (including FTs) – 1.58
I don’t know if there is some fancy way to calculate points per shot that I am ignoring, but currently Shaq averages 11.3 FGA/g and 7.3 FTA/g while scoring 17.7 pts/g. That works out to .95 pts/shot, not 1.58. Are you getting different numbers? Nash and Stoudemire both average better than 1 pt/shot, and that’s why I said they were more productive.
There’s also the opportunity cost of running the offense through Shaq, though. It may make him more productive, but what does it do to the rest of the team? Do the Suns get as many open looks at three-pointers anymore? Is there as much movement on offense? How many of their shots are “quality shots” this year as compared to last year? A current snapshot of the team doesn’t tell you what they could be doing if conditions were different.
Hoi
February 12, 2009
I think this blog is great, but this post looks a bit like it was made without watching the Suns closely or extensively.
After the Shaq trade, that Suns offense was still structured largely as it has been the past few seasons, so that Amare/Nash were the primary offensive options, whether through the pick and roll or Amare getting the ball in the low post. Shaq was used for the occasional post up, but just as often he’ll be out in the high post setting screens or setting up on the weak side for O-boards. He was, and is, still respected on offense so that the defence had to pay a fair amount of attention to him (whether for offense or for O-boards), leading to slightly less defensive attention for the other players.
This season, Porter has structured the offense so that Shaq is the dominant offense option – he’ll generally get the ball at least 2/3 trips down the floor in the low post, and even when he doesn’t get the ball, he’s still in the low post – he doesn’t flash high very often. Amare gets very few opportunities in the low post and has been restricted mainly to a high post/face-up game. Amare has a great jumper for a big man, but he’s definitely more effective facing up in the low post or running the pick and roll/pop with Nash.
I don’t know how to get Amare’s stats after the trade last season, but his stats for the whole last season were:
EFG 59.2
TS 65.6
Shaq’s were (after the trade):
EFG 61.1
TS 60.5
It would be safe to assume that Amare’s stats were a fair bit higher after the Shaq trade.
This season, Amare’s at:
EFG 53.5
TS 61.1
Shaq’s at:
EFG 59.0
TS 61.5
So even in Amare’s “off year”, in a system where he’s not getting the opportunities he should be, his TS% is virtually the same as Shaq’s, who’s in his “rebirth” year.
To me, the above stats indicate a player that is not being used properly and is frustrated by it. It’s not accurate IMO to be saying Shaq’s the more efficient offense option when 1) the difference in efficiency is not great and 2) the offense is designed to get him into spots where he can succeed at the expense of the other players (specifically, Nash and Amare – besides Amare not being used in the right spots in the offensive structure, the pick and roll is run far less frequently these days with Nash, and a Nash/Shaq pick and roll is not as a good as a Nash/Amare pick and roll because Shaq these days lacks the explosiveness to roll properly, and he’s never being able to “pop” and hit a jumper).
To look at the stats without watching the games to see how the players are being used is not going to accurately portray the situation.
Of course Amare has to take some of the blame – his effort level on the boards in particular has gone down noticeably. But he’s never been a great rebounder and defender, and while it would be great if he could be Duncan-esque on that end, it’s the coach and the GM’s responsibility to ensure that each player on the team’s strengths are maximised and weaknesses are minimised. When players are not put in a position where they can succeed – especially for a player who has gotten it done for a number of years in Stoudemire (although they didn’t win a championship, the Suns have had extensive success in recent seasons due in no small part to Stoudemire – it’s not like he was aggregating stats on a bad team).
Which brings me to:
“Certainly both Steve Nash and Stoudemire are offering less under Porter. But looking back at Table One we see the other players on the team are offering about the same. In other words, I am not convinced this is coaching.”
I remember you have made previous posts which state that a team’s 2-3 most important players make a far bigger difference to a team’s success than the rest of the players. Therefore, it would stand to reason that one of a coach’s primary responsibilities is to maximise the effectiveness of his 2-3 most important players.
At the moment, Porter is not maximising the strengths of 2 of his 3 most important players (Nash and Amare). Based on both the stats (a lesser team offense AND defense) and watching the games (players in spots on the floor where they are contributing less to a team’s success – in some games, J-Rich is almost getting as many post-up opportunities as Amare!), it appears that Porter IS a primary problem for this team.
Finally, Steve Kerr and Rob Sarver must take some of the blame. If you want to re-make a team into a defense-orientated one, you have to re-consider your personnel. Right now, not one of the starting-five (besides maybe Shaq) can be considered as an above average defender. Trying to re-make offense-orientated players into defense-orientated players, especially when they are veterans, probably does not have a high probability of success. Similarly, Kerr wants to re-make the team into a half-court structured offense team (like the Spurs), yet it’s arguable that only one player (again, Shaq) is better in that kind of offense. A half-hearted re-make of the team such as that is not a recipe for successfully re-making a team. Someone like Billups or Duncan would fit perfectly into that kind of offense; Nash and Amare would not.
So, in conclusion – I have no doubt some blame should be allocated on Amare, because his effort level has gone down and he’s not playing as well as last year. But I understand why he’s frustrated and I think the majority of the blame for the Suns’ problems this season must go to 1) Porter, who has not maximised the personnel effectively like D’Antoni (and it wasn’t like he was a good head coach last time around either, with the Bucks), and 2) Kerr and Sarver, who’s trying to do a half-ass makeover of the team, plus having made some horrendous personnel decisions in the past (Dragic!).
If they trade Amare, I have no doubt he’ll dominate at his next destination and make the Suns look rather foolish in the process.
“Although such a trade may not be welcomed by fans of this team, it may be the best move for this franchise to make. After all, once you we have assigned blame for an outcome, the next step is to impose consequences. And when a player puts his scoring ahead of winning, it’s probably time for the team to move on.”
It’ll be the best move for the franchise to make if they want to continue having Kerr and Porter as the figureheads. Nothing wrong with that – I don’t pay the salaries – but the Suns were doing fine for a number of years before Kerr came on board, and Porter certainly hasn’t distinguished himself this year. Hiring a coach to make the defence better, and then having the defence worsen, is not a good thing for his resume.
As for Amare putting his scoring in front of winning – in previous seasons, with Amare being the primary scoring option, the team was winning plenty. I think it’s a case of a player being frustrated by not being used properly – and yes, if the team insists on not using him properly, it’s probably time for him to move on.
Okay, back to work.
John W. Davis
February 13, 2009
I blame Steve Kerr. He is an sorry excuse for a GM!