The discussion of the problems facing the Detroit Pistons led Italian Stallion – a person who frequently comments in this forum – to argue that the Pistons could learn from the New York Knicks. According to IS, the Knicks pursued a strategy of getting worse before getting better. And the key part of this strategy was clearing cap space which was used to acquire productive veterans.
My take on the Knicks, though, is a bit different. And to see these differences, let’s look back at some recent history.
The Knicks under Isiah Thomas clearly didn’t find much success. As detailed in Stumbling on Wins, the Knicks under Isiah led the NBA in spending. All that spending, though, didn’t lead to many wins.
When Isiah finally departed in 2008 the Knicks were clearly in a mess. The team’s roster was both expensive and unproductive. To fix this mess, Donnie Walsh apparently decided to do everything he could to clear salary cap space. With space in hand, Walsh planned on adding expensive yet productive talent. In sum, Walsh and Thomas didn’t have a tremendously different approach. Both believed in spending money. But Walsh, though, hoped to find better expensive talent.
The shedding of salary took time, and last year the process had not yet been completed. So the results on the court in 2009-10 weren’t great, as the team only won 29 games. When we look at efficiency differential (offensive efficiency minus defensive efficiency)– and corresponding Wins Produced – we see a team that should have won 31 games.
Of these 31 Wins Produced, 12.6 were linked to the play of David Lee. Not only did Lee lead the Knicks in overall production, he was also the only player on the roster to post a WP48 [Wins Produced per 48 minutes] in excess of 0.109 (average WP48 is 0.100). Given this lack of productive players, it is not surprising this roster wasn’t very successful.
Again, though, this team wasn’t supposed to be successful. The goal was to clear cap space and then spend a large sum of money during the summer of 2010. To execute this plan, David Lee was removed from the roster. And then people in New York hoped that LeBron James would take much of the cap space of this team off its hands.
Unfortunately, the Knicks discovered that hope isn’t a very good plan. As every NBA fan knows, LeBron decided to join Dwyane Wade and Chris Bosh in Miami.
New York, though, did manage to spend some money while bringing in many new faces. Of the ten veterans who have taken the floor for the Knicks this year, six are new players for the Knicks. When we look at these six, two of the most important are Amare Stoudemire and Raymond Felton. Last season, Stoudemire produced 9.7 wins and posted a 0.162 WP48 for the Phoenix Suns while Felton produced 8.5 wins with a 0.154 WP48. So this duo produced about 18 wins in 2009-10.
This season both are again above average. And combined, Stoudemire and Felton are on pace to produce about 20.1 wins. However, the remaining veterans – as the following table reveals – are only on pace to produce about 13 wins. In other words, the ten veterans the Knicks are employing are only on pace to produce about 33 victories this year. Such a mark is quite consistent with what this team has achieved the past decade (across the past nine years the Knicks have averaged 31 wins per season and never won more than 39 games in a season).
That means if the Knicks were just relying on the veterans this team employs, the results for this team would be quite similar to what we saw this century. Yes, Stoudemire has offered a bit less. And Felton is doing a bit more this year (while Wilson Chandler is doing quite a bit more). But the veterans as a group are doing about as much as we would expect given what these players did last year.
Of course, the Knicks are better than they were the past ten years. So if it isn’t the veterans, what is the explanation?
Okay, my answer should be obvious to anyone who has been reading The Wages of Wins Journal this season. The key addition has been Landry Fields. After 25 games, Fields is on pace to produce 17.7 wins and post a 0.330 WP48. He is easily the most productive rookie in the NBA.
To illustrate the contribution of Fields, imagine the Knicks found a shooting guard who could post a 0.100 WP48 this year. Such a mark is average, but better than what the team employed in 2009-10. In other words, average would have been an upgrade. But this average shooting guard – coupled with all the other changes the team made – would have left the Knicks on pace to win 34 games this year. Yes, even with Stoudemire and Felton, the Knicks are not much better than what we have seen recently without the Amazing Landry Fields.
So why is Fields so good? When we look at the stats we can see he is a very efficient scorer and prolific rebounder. Okay, those are the numbers. Why is he getting these numbers?
One could think of a few explanations.
- Maybe it is the coaching – or more specifically the system – of Mike D’Antoni. After all, look at how much better the veteran additions to this team are playing in D’Antoni’s system (okay, I don’t see a very dramatic difference and coaching generally doesn’t make a difference).
- Or maybe Fields is benefitting from playing with Amare Stoudemire. After all, shooting guards with Stoudemire always post WP48 numbers in excess of 0.300 (okay, that has never actually happened before).
- Or maybe Fields is just a very good player. In other words, maybe the numbers that Fields is putting up are really mostly about Fields.
As one might guess, I am somewhat partial to the third explanation. I tend to think the numbers we see for NBA players are mostly about those specific NBA players. Players who can shoot do so because they can shoot. And players who grab many rebounds do so because they are good rebounders. Likewise, players who can’t shoot very well are players who don’t shoot very well. And players who can’t grab many rebounds really aren’t very good at rebounding.
Yes, it is a simple explanation. But surprisingly, an explanation people often overlook in evaluating players. For some reason, people think that given a different coach or a different set of teammates, individual players can dramatically change what they do. This may very well be true in a sport like football, where player performance is very inconsistent (see Peyton Manning this year). But in basketball – where player performance is more consistent (not perfectly consistent, just more consistent) – I suspect performance is mostly about the talents a player possesses and not the team that employs the player.
And that observation brings me to my decoding of the secret rebuilding plan employed by the Knicks. The plan was to employ the same approach as Isiah Thomas. Yes, spend as much money as possible on NBA veterans. There was just one twist added. And that twist was…find an amazing talent in the second round of the draft that NBA scouts completely missed.
We can see that this plan has produced a team that is capable of winning. Unfortunately every team can’t count on every other team missing out on amazing second round talents. So unfortunately, it is not clear that other teams can systematically employ this specific plan.
The general idea, though, should be heeded. The key to building a successful NBA team is not finding the right coach or right team chemistry. The key is finding players who can produce wins. And that means, you need to find players who hit their shots (i.e. make the orange ball go in the hoop on a high percentage of attempts), and when the shot doesn’t go in, find a way to grab the rebound. Yes, I do think it is that simple.
– DJ
P.S. If you want another take on Landry Fields, see Ty Willihnganz discussion at Courtside Analyst (it really isn’t a different take, just another take).
Update: Andres Alvarez quickly chimed in with this observation on the Knicks “secret” plan…..Isiah also found Lee (the rumor is he had to be convinced to pick him though) and Balkman in the draft. The difference here with Fields is that he is actually getting minutes. So the Knicks plan remains
- Pay a ton for scoring veterans
- Luck out in the draft.
- (Brand new part): Actually play your good players
Wages of Wins Journal 
nerdnumbers
December 15, 2010
DJ,
Isiah also found Lee (the rumor is he had to be convinced to pick him though) and Balkman in the draft. The difference here with Fields is that he is actually getting minutes. So the Knicks plan remains
1. Pay a ton for scoring veterans
2. Luck out in the draft.
Brand new part 3. Actually play your good players.
dberri
December 15, 2010
Thanks Andres,
Your comment has been added to the post.
Rob Ives
December 15, 2010
This post reveals the true difference among coaches: to whom they decide to give the minutes. An NBA coach has 240 minutes to dole out, with a maximum to any one player of about 40/game. No sportswriter would play Landry Fields or Kurt Rambis or Josh McRoberts. A coach who knows what makes a team win will do so.
brgulker
December 15, 2010
I love this.
In semi-defense of part of IS’s point in the Pistons comment, I do agree that the Pistons have to shed salary. Yes, they need to draft (and play) young talent, which should be doable (okay, that’s optimistic) given their high draft picks coming.
However, I don’t see much hope in Detroit unless they can get out of Rip’s deal, Maxiel’s deal, and perhaps BG’s and Charlie’s deal. Those four guys are eating up a lot of cap space without contributing much. Simply clearing their salaries would be a big step in the right direction.
On topic, it’s fascinating to me that Fields’ AdjP48 is nearly identical to Stoudamire’s.
Comparing their box score stats, the main difference seems to be (surprise, surprise) FGA and FTA: http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/tiny.cgi?id=BvsMh
kevin
December 15, 2010
“The Knicks under Isiah Thomas clearly didn’t find much success. ”
I’m not sure I would say that, Dave. They certainly found a way to be the lead story on the nightly news a lot. That’s a form of success.
J. Scott
December 15, 2010
First question I need answered is why Gallinari’s WP48 in dberri’s analysis is so much lower than appears in Arturo’s tables. It changes the analysis significantly. Arturo’s clearly above average rating for Gallinari (.139) comports with Dean Oliver’s WinSharesPer48 for Gallinari, which also shows him producing at comfortably above average rates.
Look, I value the usefulness of WP48. But it’s a tool for analysis; it’s not the analysis itself. None of the comments , either today or yesterday, give any indication any of the commentators have spent much time watching the Knicks play.
There’s a saying in horse racing: It’s not how fast a horse ran, it’s how he ran fast. Rather than simply taking Landry Fields’ high WP48 at face value, I think an analysis of HOW he’s accumulating such a high figure would be more useful. Going off Arturo’s table and Oliver’s WS48 we see Gallinari, Chandler AND Felton all producing at career high levels. Is it a coincidence this is happening upon first exposure to Stoudemire? Maybe…maybe not.
Were we not assured that adding Josh Childress to the Suns would pretty much cancel out Stoudemire’s departure, if not actually improving the Suns? How’s that worked out? Do the Suns appear to have improved ? I’m not seeing it, myself.
ironlynxtk
December 15, 2010
I do have a question, I’ve been using the automated wins produced app to monitor the Knicks the whole season. Amare played VERY POORLY, as in negative WP48 for the first few games. Is it possible to know how he’s been playing during this 13-1 stretch?
Remember Amare at one point was a certifiable all-star, I believe he’s had multiple seasons in PHX where his WP48 was above .200. If he returns to this all-star form, the Knicks could theoretically win 50 games?
Another side point. I heard rumors that the Blazers won’t resign Greg Oden, what is your take on that? As a Knicks fan I pray every day that we could some how acquire Oden, the guy is just in an unfortunate situation in Portland.
Italian Stallion
December 15, 2010
I don’t disagree with what you are saying about Fields, but I think using Amare’s and Felton’s stats for the full year is not reflective of what has actually happened this year and what they have contributed over the last 14 games (of which the Knicks won 13 of their total of 16).
When the season started one of the biggest debates among Knicks fans was whether Amare could be as effective with Felton as he was with Nash because Nash is an elite PG and great outside shooter that could work the pick and roll (a huge part of the Knicks offense under D’Antoni) to perfection with Amare.
After the first 11 games it seemed the answer was “no”. (3-8)
There was panic among Knicks fans as they watched Felton consistently get the ball to Amare in terrible position, turn the ball over trying or Amare turn the ball over trying to do too much or miss shots while being double teamed. During that period Amare’s TS% plummeted relative to his normally highly efficient level and there was no space on the court for the Knicks outside shooters. It was a disaster.
Then something magically happened.
D’Antoni forced some adjustments, Felton finally started understand the system and where to get Amare the ball, Amare started to relax and not try be the hero on every play, and all hell broke loose.
The Knicks started winning.
They weren’t beating very good teams, but they were beating all the bad teams every night because Felton and Amare started playing really well together (more like unbelievably well).
Some thing else happened too.
Once Amare’s scoring efficiency exploded upward on heavy usage, defenses were in the position of making a choice between doubling Amare and freeing up some of the Knicks outside shooters or allowing Amare to run hog wild because no could cover him 1 on 1.
Since then, Chandler (defenses don’t like to leave Gallo alone) has been getting better looks and his efficiency has also started to rise sharply.
I think there’s no way to avoid the conclusion that Amare has played massively better over the last 14 games and that has been the driving force behind their much better play and winning streak. I don’t think the annual stats are capturing what has really happened.
Beyond that, he’s also been an emotional leader for the young players that typically used to collapse under the heat of 4th quarter pressure, performed incredibly well down the stretch of tight games by making really big shots/plays when the emotional tilt of the game was about to change etc…
As to my original view that Walsh took the right path I still think that’s the case (even though I didn’t agree with every move).
As part of the various deals the Knicks made to clear space they still have Anthony Randolph and Kelenna Azubuike. Neither has made any contribution yet, but AR is still probably worth a first round pick or serviceable player that can contribute some wins if they decide not to use wait on his development. Anything they get from Azubuike will be a pleasant upside (and he used to be a pretty darn good player before he got hurt). Finally, they have 11.5 million coming off the cap when Eddy Curry’s contract expires after this year.
I don’t think there’s any doubt that Walsh managed the cap brilliantly and accelerated the time it took to take the team from cap space hell and players that no one wanted to a team with young players with upside, a few solid veterans, cap space flexibility going forward, and assets that can be used to fill any remaining holes.
IMO, the the Pistons should follow the same path and trade away their overpaid scorers with bad contracts for even worse players with shorter contracts and then try to rebuild as those shorter contracts expire.
John Giagnorio
December 15, 2010
I think the long term rebuilding plan is to replace Felton with Paul or Deron Williams. This seems like a lock to happen. Well known Knicks hater Adrian Wojnarowski mentioned Dwight Howard would be very interested in the Knicks. Hard to judge how likely this is. In the long run I think they’ll be just fine and Stoudemire will be a good 3rd option, though I agree other teams probably shouldn’t model themselves on a franchise with as many natural advantages as the Knicks.
Italian Stallion
December 15, 2010
John,
Other teams don’t have to model their rebuild process the same way as the Knicks. Some should focus on the draft instead of free agents and others can do a little of both. They should just all tear down their teams the same way when they have a team of overpaid, underachieving, veterans with very long contracts.
The idea is to escape cap space hell as quickly as possible. The only way to do that is to take back worse players that are also overpaid, but with shorter contracts. That allows the process of acquiring fairly priced players to begin sooner and also makes the team worse in the short term which in turn allows for better draft picks going forward.
The worst place a team can be is capped out with bad contracts and mediocre players/results. You can’t get great draft picks because you aren’t bad enough and you can’t get better because no one wants any of your players. You have to blow it up.
reservoirgod
December 15, 2010
D’Antoni’s a good coach but I don’t think it took a lot of insight to understand that he had to play Landry Fields. I posted a story last week on the Miami Heat Index w/ the WP48 of each team’s bench and the Knicks had the 29th ranked reserves in the league. There aren’t a lot of productive options behind Landry Fields. D’Antoni said on MSG that he’d play the top 5/6 players even more if he wouldn’t get in trouble with management, so he knows he doesn’t have much of anything behind Fields. He also said his assistant coaches told him after summer league that he was going to have to play Fields a lot of minutes and D’Antoni found out they were right in training camp.
I also agree w/ John Giagnorio. It was pretty smart to give Felton a contract that expires at the same time CP3 and Deron Williams’ contracts expire.
reservoirgod
December 15, 2010
I also think there may be some similarities between the Knicks and the Warriors. The Warriors have the least productive bench in the league by WP48 and once they got hit with injuries to Lee & Curry, they started racking up losses by the ton. If the Knicks have any injury problems this year, they could hit a similar rough patch.
Italian Stallion
December 15, 2010
reservoirgod,
The bench is not that deep, but the team is versatile.
D’Antoni likes versatile players so he can use them in different ways depending on the matchups.
He can use Amare at C or PF, Chandler at SG, SF, or PF, Fields at the SG or SF, and Douglas at SG or PG.
IMO one of the keys is going to be getting AR on the court. He can be productive at several positions also, but D’Antoni doesn’t like the fact that he can’t shoot from outside (he likes spacing to run the PnR) or his decision making. If either he or Azubuike start contributing the bench will be OK.
We aren’t talking about a contender here.
We are talking about a team fighting for a playoff spot, loaded with young players with upside, a useless 11.5 million coming off the books in a few months, and tremendous cap flexibility going forward. It’s a team on the improve in terrific position to make some more positive moves.
IMHO, a solid defensive minded, shot blocking, good rebounding C would make this team a serious player and they have 11.5m plus assets to work with going forward.
reservoirgod
December 15, 2010
IS:
Well, the bench can’t get much worse. I stated in the off-season that I didn’t think Randolph or Azubuike would contribute much of anything to the Knicks, so I would say one of the keys is staying healthy. If any of the top 5 players get hurt, I think they’re toast but we’re arguing different sides of the same coin.
stats_guy
December 15, 2010
I’ve been reading these blogs for a while. It’s much better than most of sports analyses. However, I think that you are taking simple regression analyses to extremes at some points.
* Landry fields is obviously a great rebounder. However, you can’t directly conclude that Landry Fields is the best player in Knicks (or the best SG in the entire NBA) based on simple assignments of regression scores.
* You have often said that you believe that a player who is successful in one situation can succeed in any situation because you don’t see a lot of deviations in player production across years and teams. However, there’re flaws with this assumption. 1. Data can’t possibly contain all possible combinations of players. In fact, I’d assume that the data would only contain a tiny fraction of possible combinations. 2. People (ie coaches and GMs) are often biased when they arrange things (or construct their teams).
* For instance, I don’t think that there have been many instances where a team was constructed with no scorers and all rebounders (e.g., Ben Wallace at C and PF, Landry Fields at SG/SF, Rajon Rondo at PG). When a player is brought into a team, he’s brought in to fill a specific role. Coaches will rarely bring in players unsuitable for particular purposes (e.g. bring in Ben Wallace to be a low post threat). This might be the reason why you don’t see a lot of deviations in the data in terms of WP48.
* You do on occasions see unexpected deviations in player performance (e.g. huge drop in production for Trevor Ariza). I noticed that you often don’t bother explaining these instances and mostly attribute them to random fluctuations. However, I tend to believe that these deviations probably have more deterministic explanations. (e.g. Ariza was brought into a more prominent scoring role, and his shooting and rebounding plummetted).
brgulker
December 15, 2010
We seriously need an FAQ.
Adam C. Morrison
December 15, 2010
“Look, I value the usefulness of WP48. But it’s a tool for analysis; it’s not the analysis itself. None of the comments , either today or yesterday, give any indication any of the commentators have spent much time watching the Knicks play. ”
Amen!
Alvy
December 15, 2010
I’m watching the Knicks play right now (first time all season)… they’re pretty badass so far, especially STAT.
jbrett
December 15, 2010
I’m adding a new metric to my own personal player evaluation system. I’m calling it Potential Wins (expressed as PW, or per minute as PW48). It will bypass the traditional boxscore numbers; in fact, it will not be affected by any statistics at all. It will be based on anecdotal observations drawn from comments on this and other WoW blogs; I will then assign a weight based on what I’m told is the player’s role on his team, how his coach affects his numbers, the production he either sacrifices or steals from his teammates due to similar (and unnecessarily duplicated) skills, and the potential his innate athletic ability has to shock and awe fans and observers. In short, it will attempt to quantify the wins a player COULD be responsible for, if we fully and perfectly understood what he might be capable of doing if he played perfectly at all times. Best of all, the only data required is the eyewitness accounts of the shrewdest and most knowledgeable basketball minds in the history of mankind; if you can’t trust your own eyes, trust theirs. (If you want to save time, I recommend Khandor’s Sports Blog; he’s done most of the data “collection” already.)
The scale will run from >PW.500 (Darko; just gotta look for whatever Dumars saw in that one-on-none workout) to <PW-.200 (Magic; couldn't jump or shoot, and stole a lot of rebounds from his frontcourt). From this point the only question is how to properly weight the score for incorporation into our ultimate metric; since Wins Produced accounts for 95% of team wins, let's take 5% of our PW48 to get to an even 100%. We'll call the resulting number TWP–Theoretical Wins Produced–which should bring us a bit closer to accurately measuring what we know a player's contribution must really be. As far as using this new tool for personnel decisions, at this point I only have one guideline: When two players at a position are close–TWP48 is +/-0.025, roughly–ALWAYS choose the player with the higher PW48; his potential will be far more valuable at the box office than the other player's raw production.
I'll report back periodically with my definitive, unassailable findings for Greatest Of All Time and other superlatives–but there's no need for anyone to wait until I do. Your findings are exactly as flawless as mine.
brgulker
December 15, 2010
Jbrett, I think that’s called PER.
jbrett
December 15, 2010
brgulker,
You shame me. Brevity, clearly, is the soul, the heart–verily, it is no less than the true, pure, unsullied essence of wit. I think Bacon said that–or maybe it was Marlowe.
As for this PER of which you speak–is its formula as elegant and bulletproof as mine?
Alvy
December 15, 2010
Damn, had Landry Fields brought his .300 WP/48 game, the Knicks could have presented themselves in an awesome show.
bags fly free
December 15, 2010
thank GOD for wins produced, i dont have to watch a single minute of professional basketball and know anything about the players or my team! i can just look at the final boxscore and come up with a super accurate in depth analysis that explains everything.
brb, going to replace dwayne wade with landry fields at SG and watch heat to remain as good if not better than they are now…
dm
December 15, 2010
Excuse me Dr. Berri but that’s Mr. Stallion to you.
So why don’t you stop horsing around and give him the respect he deserves.
dm
December 15, 2010
I am pleased you are so exited Mr. Fly Free but I am sorry to inform you that you do not have the authority to alter the rosters of NBA teams.
kevin
December 15, 2010
So, the Knicks flunked the mid-term, even though the Celtics were playing without a center, their point guard had his left ankle bent in two, it was a home game and they had something to prove.
The final is tomorrow night, and they better get at least a B+ or they are going to have to go to summer school.
Italian Stallion
December 15, 2010
kevin,
I thought they played a great game against the best team in the NBA right now.
Amare and Felton were their usual terrific selves as they have been over the last few weeks.
Chandler and Gallo played their game.
Fields didn’t contribute as much as he usually does, but even when he doesn’t do a lot, he rarely does anything bad.
They lost for the reasons that have been identified previously. They don’t have a strong enough bench yet (particularly back up PG) and they don’t have a defensive minded C that can protect the paint and rebound.
If a couple of bad bounces late in the game went the right way or the refs had reviewed Pierce’s final shot and left .7 seconds on the clock the way they should have, the Knicks would have won.
Getting a backup PG in the draft or via trade should be easy.
The trick is going to be getting a productive C that provides interior defense, shot blocking, and rebounding without being a liability in other ways. That’s not going to be an easy task, but they have 11.5M to work with because Curry will be gone soon.
Add those two players and give Chandler, Fields, Gallo, Randolph, and Douglas another year or two to develop and the Knicks will be a high level team. If Randolph continues to hit the weight room and adds another 20-30 pounds of muscle to the weight he has already gained they may even already have their C of the future.
jbrett
December 15, 2010
bags fly free correctly points out an error in my data plan. Not only are my own comments a valid source of information; since I watch 10 or 12 games a week, I will have actual first-hand data at my disposal–and a great deal of it at that, since I’m watching around 10% of all games, and paying reasonably close attention to as much as 3%, and really studying at least a minute or two of each of those games. And as I am every bit as good at being impressed by a spectacular acrobatic dunk, or physically challenging, insane-degree-of-difficulty-but-nonetheless-counting-for-just-two-points jumper; therefore, anything I see personally will have to be weighted more heavily–since I’ve seen it with my own eyes, of course. Thanks for the heads-up; I will adjust my hard data to match the visual evidence.
Alvy
December 15, 2010
jbrett, would you take landry fields over d-wade?
Michael
December 16, 2010
If shooting efficiency really is far and away the most important variable in WP then I don’t really get how a guy who averages 26 points on 53% shooting could be seen as only slightly above average. I think it’s obvious to anyone that Stoudemire has been very good.
kevin
December 16, 2010
“The trick is going to be getting a productive C that provides interior defense, shot blocking, and rebounding without being a liability in other ways. ”
Agreed. And ‘Melo isn’t that person. I’m sure ‘Melo thinks getting traded to the Knicks would be great but I don’t think the Knicks think ‘Melo getting traded to them would be. They shouls ave their ammo for what you mentioned- a center who can rebound and block shots and another guard who can at least resemble a playmaker and make a shot if he’s left open.
Italian Stallion
December 16, 2010
kevin,
It’s not just Melo that thinks coming to the Knicks would be a great idea. It’s 95% of the fans and 100% of the NY media.
This is a frightening period for me because I think the Knicks are very well positioned going forward but they can undo it all by giving up 2-3 young players in a multi team deal (potentially even including Fields) for Melo, only marginally improve the team (at best), and cap the team out again leaving no room to add the center I think the team desperately needs.
If they can get Melo for Gallo + Curry or Chandler + Curry, it will be an upgrade and I can still hope that Randolph packs on 30 pounds of muscle and gets his act together to play along side Amare. It will sting a little because I like Gallo, but I can live with that. But when they start talking about trading Randolph for a #1 pick and including 2 out of Gallo, Chandler, and Fields I want to jump out the window.
If they can’t extract a good deal out of Denver as they get more desperate about losing him for nothing, then they should wait and try to get him as FA. I think they have to risk that he signs an extension with the Nets or someone else that offers a better deal to Denver.
That 11.5 million could be the key to adding productive C.
J. Scott
December 16, 2010
IS: I think the issue with Randolph isn’t 20-30 extra pounds as much as it’s 20-30 extra basketball IQ points.
Adam C. Morrison
December 16, 2010
It still makes me chuckle that IS is living in this dream world wrt Anthony Randolph.
How many coaches in the NBA do you think would’ve gave Landry Fields heavy minutes his rookie season? Yet this same coach is burying Anthony Randolph — like his former Hall of Fame coach did, by the way — and Randolph is still supposed to be this amazing ball of potential that has first-round pick value around the league?
Adding 30 pounds of muscle? Do you realize how difficult that is? Do you realize what a drastic change to the body it is? I would also imagine if it was going to happen, it would’ve.
The same simple rationale for why Randolph is not anything more than a rotational player: if it was going to happen it already would’ve.
jbrett
December 16, 2010
Alvy,
I hope I can give you a thorough answer without it becoming boring. Fields currently has a small advantage in WP48; a small sampling of comments, adjusted by my admittedly limited direct observation of Fields (several games, at most) gives Wade a distinct PW48 advantage–let’s say he’s MJ-like (.500) and Fields is pedestrian (.100), so +.400 for Wade. Five percent is .020, making their TWP a dead heat; Wade is the winner by a nose, and keeping his box office appeal on my team will make me popular with 29 other owners, the ones who reap all the benefits of my star player’s mojo, according to studies.
However, I have to take the makeup of my team into consideration. Wade is a guy I’m comfortable with being THE MAN in crunch time, which boosts his stock more than a bit (call it the Kobe Factor); the tricky issue is, I’ve got another guy like that on the team, and I don’t know yet if the two of them are going to figure out how to productively define their roles this season–or ever. Throw in Wade’s tendency toward injury, Fields age advantage, and his skill set likely being more complimentary to LeBron, and the choice is agonizing.
Best answer? Today, I want Wade. He’s the heart of the team–or, at a minimum, the soul of the fan base–and if you trade him now, before the Trio get its shot at a championship, you might as well drop a nuke on basketball in Miami. But, if he doesn’t win the title in June, I would absolutely be willing to deal him for the younger, healthier, better sidekick Fields–knowing I can get additional players and/or draft choices included.
Question for you: You’re Mitch Kupchak. The Knicks call about Kobe, TODAY, and Fields is ONE of the pieces they’re willing to offer; what do you do? I’m a Laker fan for 42 years, so I’m very interested in your thoughts.
kevin
December 16, 2010
“You’re Mitch Kupchak. The Knicks call about Kobe, TODAY, and Fields is ONE of the pieces they’re willing to offer; what do you do? I’m a Laker fan for 42 years, so I’m very interested in your thoughts.”
I listen, of course. What are the other pieces?
jbrett
December 16, 2010
Might need to redefine the parameters of the question a bit. Kobe has a no-trade, and he’s not going anywhere this season, for sure. Would he entertain a trade after winning a sixth title, if Phil leaves, to the Big Apple? Chances are still slim–so let’s go purely hypothetical; no contract or PR considerations involved.
In a vacuum, I’d trade Kobe for Fields straight up; anything else I could swindle from NY is gravy. The only real downside is I pretty much already HAVE Fields on the team; his name is Matt Barnes. My guy is 30, though, so I still like the deal. Fields is certainly enough of a SG to see minutes there in the triangle, and Shannon Brown is arguably more efficient and productive per minute than Kobe, so I’m not too concerned about my rotation. I lose the certainty of how close games will be attacked, and a certified big-shot guy, but I’ve got stars of the first order left on the roster, I’m way younger, and I’ve got plenty of assets I can move if necessary. (If the fans can’t handle the uncertainty of not having a 30% usage guy dominating every game, I can turn Fields around for somebody like Wade!)
Thoughts?
reservoirgod
December 17, 2010
Here’s a more serious trade question for Lakers fans:
CP3 for Odom? Two of my brothers are Kobe fans and they said they wouldn’t do it because they feel Odom gives them a better shot to win the title this year while Kobe’s still got some game left and all they care about is Kobe winning this year. I asked. Another Lakers fan that’s been following the team longer than jbrett & he said he would do it in a heartbeat because it’s better for the team long-term (and short-term).
Jbrett, Alvy – what say you?
Italian Stallion
December 17, 2010
Adam,
I must be living in a different world than you.
1. Anthony Randolph was a teenage string bean when he came into the league. He was 6′ 10″ and 197 lbs. He’s already put on 20-30 lbs and he just turned 21. If you look at his frame, it’s obvious it can handle a lot more weight. I don’t know about you, but most human beings continue filling out after the age of 21. I know I did. That goes double if they stay in the weight room where’s he’s been since his injury last year. If this kid keeps working, IMHO it’s a mortal lock he’ll be 240-250 in a year or two and will continue getting stronger from there.
2. He was already a productive player last year at age 20 before he got hurt.
AR was one of the best rebounders and shot blockers in the league Per 36 minutes over his first 2 seasons. He wasn’t an efficient scorer, but that can be traced entirely to his outside shot.
Outside shooting and shot selection is the one thing that players CAN and often DO improve on over time. But to be honest, I don’t even think he has to improve that much if he’s ultimately going to be a Marcus Camby-like C. He just can’t be a liability that allows defenses to cheat off him mid range.
The problem he’s been having for both GS and NY is that his decision making and knowledge of the game is poor. Not everyone is Landry Fields. Some players understand their limits and play within them right away (like Fields) . Others take time. If he came out of college after 4 years and was 24 now, I’d be troubled. But he just turned 21 and missed almost a full year with injury. Anyone that saw Wilson Chandler play a year or two ago understands what I am talking about. It takes time for some guys to get it. He may never be “Fields”, but he’ll learn “if” he wants to.
The reason D’Anoni is holding him out right now is that he doesn’t fit the system with his current body/skill set and the Knicks organization is desperate to make the playoffs. So they don’t want to deal with his learning curve.
He’s too weak to play C right now and the Knicks require that their PF/SF be a good outside shooter to create space for the pick and roll. Since he can’t shoot well enough, he’d become a liability in the system over and above the “youthful” poor decision making.
Personally, I’ve been arguing that he should be getting some minutes off the bench considering the Knicks were giving minutes to Mozgov who IMO was terrible. But D’Antoni finally figured out that Mozgov was killing us and has now benched him too.
Italian Stallion
December 17, 2010
I don’t think any rational GM in basketball would even consider trading Kobe/Wade for Fields. In fact I think anyone that suggested it would ruin their chances of a career in the NBA.
To begin with, we haven’t seen enough of Fields. The sample is too small to know whether this level of performance will be sustainable . I’m his biggest fan, but it wouldn’t shock me if his shooting efficiency dropped.
Over and above that, even though scoring tends to overrated, teams need scoring. At this stage Fields is below average usage scorer. If he’s going to be a huge piece on your team replacing an elite scorer like Kobe/Wade, you better have some damn good scorers on the team that can up their usage a lot and take and hit a lot of tougher shots than they usually take because they are inevitably going to present themselves.
That doesn’t even begin to address defense, play making, ability to perform under extreme pressure, playoff experience etc….
nerdnumbers
December 17, 2010
Italian,
Define rational. Now Dwyane Wade I’ll give you. He’s a proven talent, in his prime. His contract is a bit longer than I’d like but I bet you in 3 years the Heat could still easily trade him. Kobe is past his prime on the most expensive contract in the league. Fields is next to nothing in terms of cost and since he isn’t a high usage scorer his next contract will probably be undervalued. I’ll actually agree Kobe is worth a good amount of money but 24 million? In 3 years he’ll cost his team 30 million. At this point you have Landry Fields (young and inexperienced) vs. Kobe (old and fading). You gamble on Landry and lose and and you’re out 1.1 million. You gamble on Kobe and are wrong and you lose 75-100 million. In what world is a 100 million gamble a more rational choice than 1.1 million gamble.
Also for the usage argument. The NBA has a shot clock. It means players HAVE to shoot, they don’t have a choice. It’s not like if you take Kobe off the Lakers at the end of the 24 the players just hand the ball to the other team. . .
Adam C. Morrisson
December 17, 2010
IS,
I am sorry that I expected you to be rational.
Alvy
December 17, 2010
Ah interesting questions, I may have to answer in a post. But for the time being, I wouldn’t trade Odom for CP3. And I won’t trade Kobr for Fields. However, given considerations to contracts, age and health, I’m not entirely sure what I would do. Chances are, kobe would be gone before Odom would tbh.
jbrett
December 17, 2010
AFTER this season? I’d make BOTH those deals, in a heartbeat. I have no idea why CP3 stock is in freefall, to the point where guys like Barkley are touting Deron and even Rose over him; makes me think that even the guys who played great have trouble distinguishing between the guys who CAN produce and the ones that DO. You might not have to sweeten that deal with much more than Odom right now–and you’re going to get plenty for Kobe along with Fields. Granted, you’ll need it; you’re going to want backups for Bynum and Gasol that AREN’T Joe Smith and Theo Ratliff.
DURING the season? Odom for CP3, but not Kobe for Fields. It’s arguably the bigger steal; but, as IS points out, very small sample size. CP3 simply cannot be passed up, whether it hurts this year’s title chances or not–and I’m not convinced it would. You’re upgrading the only weak position you have–by adding the best player in the league. If that creates other problems, so be it; you fix them afterward.
Italian Stallion
December 17, 2010
Nerd and Adam,
We aren’t discussing a long term move for a team that’s rebuilding. The Lakers are in a position to win the championship for at least 3 more years. IMO trading Kobe for Fields would be ridiculous and irrational on many levels, but most importantly it would reduce their chances of winning a championship now. They can worry about Kobe being in decline 3-4 years from now when they have another 1 or 2 rings.
Nerd,
The reason aggregate studies on the NBA suggest that there’s a minimal trade off in efficiency/usage is because some players in the league are under utilized (usually when there other excellent offensive players on the team) and because many only up their usage as they develop the skills to be successful doing so. It’s rare for a player to be asked to do a lot more than he can. That’s why the evidence is not clear.
Each player and team has to be judged as an individual. You have to appraise their skill sets and try to determine how a change in usage would impact their efficiency. It would be nice to have a little formula to figure this all out, but the real world doesn’t work that way. Each player is different and the makeup of every team is different.
Ask yourself this?
If there’s little or no tradeoff in usage/efficiency and we know that scorers are are paid the big bucks, then why isn’t Landry Fields scorong 30 point a night so he can get a max contract next time too?
That argument could apply to every efficient low usage efficient player in the NBA. They don’t because they can’t and if they tried their efficiency would plummet.
Adam C. Morrisson
December 18, 2010
“If there’s little or no tradeoff in usage/efficiency and we know that scorers are are paid the big bucks, then why isn’t Landry Fields scorong 30 point a night so he can get a max contract next time too?
That argument could apply to every efficient low usage efficient player in the NBA. They don’t because they can’t and if they tried their efficiency would plummet.”
This is also irrational.