Offseason Moves Favor Cavs Thus Far (Updated through 7/14/09; Magic looking better)
by hans on Jul 6, 2009 1:28 AM CDT
83 comments
So the Cavs missed out on Ron Artest, Trevor Ariza, and Charlie Villanueva. Well, so buttons. Let's take a look at what the team's (Boston and Orlando) the Cavs should be competing with for the East have done. There are many variables to be considered in evaluating how these off-season moves are going to affect the teams involved (playing time given to new players, playing time taken away from established players, adaptability to offense and defensive schemes, etc.), I'm not going to claim this to be an exhaustive cumulative end all be all of evaluation. The measure I'm going to use is Wins Above Replacement Player (WARP). I'm going to include the players Player Efficiency Rating (PER) and Offensive and Defensive Ratings from basketball-reference.com, which estimates how many points scored and allowed would a team made up of five starting versions of x player would score in 100 possessions, to add more depth, but it's the WARP that I'm going to fall back on in comparing what these teams really accomplished thus far.
What I want to bring to attention to is the end results, the net gain/loss for these teams thus far. The Lakers for example have made the headlines in bringing in Ron Artest, a big name in the free agent market for sure, but the cost of bringing him in was the loss of Trevor Ariza, who then signed with Artest's former team the Houston Rockets. So what will this mean if Artest now is replacing Ariza's minutes next season? Does this end up as an improvement or a loss in production and even more importantly (because it is too often lost in the media hype) how much of an improvement or loss will this be?
The Boston Celtics
Received: Rasheed Wallace
Rasheed Wallace: 3.9 WARP, 14.9 PER, 107 ORtg 103 DRtg.
If the core of the team remains and is healthy (not a given) this is, in my opinion, the top competition in the East for the Cavs. (Orlando is right there next to them though). Adding Wallace and not losing a player yet (Glen Davis may go) has the Celtics looking pretty good so far.
3.9 WARP value gained.
Recieved: Vince Carter and Ryan Anderson through trade, signed Brandon Bass through free agency.
Lost: Rafer Alson, Tony Battie, and Courtney Lee through trade; lost Hedo Turkoglu and Marcin Gortat through free agency.
Vince Carter: 9.0 WARP, 19.3 PER, 112 ORtg 112 DRtg.
Ryan Anderson: 1.9 WARP, 13.6 PER, 108 ORtg 109 DRtg.
Brandon Bass: 3.1 WARP, 16.4 PER 113 ORtg 108 DRtg.
Anderson is a non-factor here as far as next season goes, he's a young (20 yrs old last season) forward who is at least above replacement level, but his PER is below average and his defense isn't that good yet. Vince Carter is a very valuable player, but all of his value rests in his offense as his 112 DRtg is bad. Bass effectively replaces Gortat's production although he's a more traditional power forward rather than center.
Rafer Alston: 4.3 WARP, 13.8 PER, 105 ORtg 104 DRtg.
Tony Battie: 0.3 WARP, 11.9 PER, 106 ORtg 102 DRtg.
Courtney Lee: 0.9 WARP, 10.8 PER, 107 ORtg 104 DRtg.
Hedo Turkoglu: 5.0 WARP, 14.8 PER, 107 ORtg 104 DRtg.
Marcin Gortat: 3.1 WARP, 17.2 PER, 121 ORtg 97 DRtg.
Alston's loss is mitigated by the return of a healthy Jameer Nelson (5.8 WARP last season) to run the point. The big loss of course is Turkoglu, who's defense (which has a lot to do with his size for his position) is simply not going to be replaced by Carter, but a point earned is about as valuable as a point allowed, so I'd expect to see more offense out of this team with a full season of Nelson and Carter. This won't be the top defensive team in the league (which Orlando was in team DRtg.) again. Each of the players they lost contributed on the defensive end, Battie and Lee are both good defenders, and although Alston gives a step to Nelson on the offensive end, he is his equal defensively. Gortat is simply not going to be replaced, he was a very good back up last season that will see his role expand in Dallas this year. Well that was a little unexpected the Magic reportedly matched the offer sheet for Gortat, this is going to give the Magic a formidable frontcourt, but is going to cost the team lots and lots of $$$ in the short term due to the salary cap and luxary tax.
14.0 WARP - 10.5 WARP= 3.5 WARP value gained
I'd like to point out here another reason why I chose to use WARP, a replacement level player (a player that is easily available to acquire but isn't all that good) is a 0.0 rated player in WARP, so even though Orlando is losing four players and only gained two thus far, this allows us to still compare the gains/losses by simply plugging in two replacement players in the roster and not having to worry about it effecting the results. The point isn't to argue over who the Magic eventually fill those roster spots with because we simply don't know for sure and I'm not interested in opinions or guesses here. All we know is if those spots need to be filled by the beginning of the year they will be filled with replacement players at the least.
Received: Shaquille O'Neal by trade, Anthony Parker by free agency
Lost: Ben Wallace and Sasha Pavlovic
Shaquille O'Neal: 10.7 WARP, 22.3 PER, 117 ORtg, 109 DRtg.
Anthony Parker: 0.7 WARP, 12.1 PER, 105 ORtg, 111 DRtg.
Shaquille is a major upgrade on the offensive end over the players he was traded for. His defensive rating last season was the highest he's had in his career; this could either be a fluke season or quick regression of his defensive skills because of his age. In terms of WARP he's the most valuable player acquired thus far this offseason. I think the Cavs think higher of Parker's ability to defend in their defensive system than his numbers indicate about his defense from last season. Well he's going to be better than Pavlovic and Szczerbiak, which isn't saying much but is an improvement.
Ben Wallace: 3.4 WARP, 12.2 PER, 111 ORtg 98 DRtg.
Sasha Pavlovic: -1.4 WARP, 8.6 PER, 102 ORtg 105 DRtg.
Ben Wallace was very productive on the defensive end despite being unable to show much in the Orlando series in this regard. But he's a very limited player at this point in his career and offers almost nothing on offense. Pavlovic was just a disappointment in that he never developed his game despite having the size to really solve the Cavs' need for a tall perimeter defender. He actually performed under replacement level on the year. What happens to Andy Varejao (5.5 WARP) will impact the team's end results for the offseason, but picking up a guy like Antonio Mcdyess (5.3 WARP) would mitigate that loss. Keeping Varejao helps limit the team's free agent losses to minimal value lost. Joe Smith figures to be the player with most value (1.7 WARP) that may not rejoin the team, but I wouldn't rule him out just yet, depending on what they think of Hickson's return from an injury they may need to bolster the PF position.
11.4 WARP - 2.0 WARP = 9.4 WARP value gained.
So we have Cleveland with a substantial gain thus far, Boston with its recent acquisition of Rasheed Wallace improve as well, and Orlando's move for Vince Carter and signing of Brandon Bass helps them come out about as good as Boston. I'll try to update this as the offseason progresses. At this point the Cavs are looking strong to repeat with the best record in the Eastern Conference, which I want to point out should be the goal result for this team from a roster composition standpoint, a lot of things can happen between now and the playoffs next season, the best accomplishment for the regular season is to secure home court advantage through the playoffs.
This is a Fan-Created Comment on FearTheSword.com. The opinion here is not necessarily shared by the editorial staff at FearTheSword
1 recs |
83 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
You Forgot Gortat.
Marcin Gortat agreed to terms with the Mavs. No backup as yet for Howard. That definitely subtracts from the Magic.
by Delonte's Inferno on Jul 6, 2009 11:04 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Yeah I’ll try to update here and there, I was writing this up late last night and was just lucky enough to catch the Rasheed Wallace move, before posting. Missed the Gortat thing. That certainly brings them down as of now.
by hans on Jul 6, 2009 2:31 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
hans, I like where your head is at but..
All it took was the Cavs getting a rotation player for Wallace and Pavs and it would’ve been an improvement. Ben Wallace and Sasha were not important to the Cavaliers, the only value were their contracts. How Sasha could go from a rotation player to 11th man on the bench just amazes me.
The other teams lost rotation guys, whereas the Cavs didn’t…
Artest/Ariza
Ariza/Artest
VC/Hedo
Villenueva/Dyess and Rasheed
Also, does it worry any of you that all of these guys are signing with other teams after LeBron supposedly has meetings with these guys or when Mike Brown contacts them? I mean, there were reports from Windhorst that made it sound like Rasheed, Ariza, Artest, Villenueva, etc were all coming to Cleveland. None of them did. Aside from Villenueva (who got more money than the MLE) how come Ferry or LeBron couldn’t seal the deal? Ariza would’ve been a nightmare for the Eastern Conference if CLE acquired him. Why would he go to Houston when Houston is destined for the lottery next season? You would think if “The King” had as much pull as we’re lead to believe and with as much money as Dan Gilbert is threatening to spend that we’d see Artest in a Cavs’ uni or Ariza in a Cavs’ uni, right?
I would’ve been more worried about the Cavaliers going into next season had they acquired an athletic wing, like a poor man’s LeBron (Ariza) or a lock down defender (Artest). Right now though all the Cavs have to show for the Plain Dealer headlines that basically said that Ferry was printing money at the Q is Shaq. Not very impressive, when comparing to the other acquisitions.
by Boney on Jul 6, 2009 12:17 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
i just don’t understand what you’re saying. are you knocking the cavs for picking up shaquille for next-to-nothing? is that the “rotation players” point? whatever it is, the cavs added 8.7 of WARP value to a team that won 66 games. that is awesome for the cavs, not good for anyone else.
the biggest acquisition of the offseason has been shaquille. period. it’s not even clear that we offered anything to anyone except artest, and i guess we lost that one. who cares. are you honestly telling us that you’d be more worried about the cavs if they’d added trevor ariza and kept ben wallace and sasha? that is nothing if not insane.
Not very impressive, when comparing to the other acquisitions.
you clearly didn’t understand hans’ point at all. it is actually the most impressive deal, especially when comparing to the other deals. there are actually numbers that bear that out.
by DontCallMeJoey on Jul 6, 2009 12:36 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
"All it took was the Cavs getting a rotation player for Wallace and Pavs and it would’ve been an improvement."
They got a rotation player, so that makes them, on the surface/paper, better.
I clearly understand hans’ point in that statement alone.
To take this 8.7 WARP value even further, aren’t all of these percentages factored in with the players that are surrounding the individual as well as their use in the system they’re in? Because clearly, Orlando is going to have a better system than New Jersey will, Houston will have a worse system than LA does, etc.
I believe Shaq to Cleveland is an ok move. I do not believe it’s the best move that could’ve been made. To bring you back to my concern/question… All of the sportswriters say that Cleveland is open for business and making reports of LeBron making trips to see Artest, Ariza talking to Ferry, etc… and then those guys sign elsewhere for the same (or less) money for a team that didn’t have as good a record as Cleveland… especially Houston with Ariza.
Cleveland does need an athletic wing, with some height. Ariza at this point in his career is better than Delonte West, and Anthony Parker is not. I never said keeping Ben and Sasha was an option, did I? It’s obvious they’re not an option, they’re GONE from the team.
by Boney on Jul 6, 2009 4:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Just because the PD was reporting that those free agents were talking to the Cavs doesn’t mean it was certain they were going to sign them. Many teams recruit free agents but the player can only sign with one team. Ron Artest had a home in LA and always wanted to play there so it was a long shot that he was going to sign in Cleveland anyways. Sure, LeBron met him to recruit him to the Cavs but that didn’t mean he was going to sign here. I never though he was, actually. Villanueva took more money to go to Detroit so you can understand that. The one guy I really wanted in Ariza, and I was puzzled by his signing with a Houston team that has two injured stars (for the same money), but maybe he thought that was his chance to be “they guy” on a team. Who knows what his motivations were, and I wouldn’t suggest we try to guess those motivations.
You said Dan Gilbert was “printing money” at the Q but the Cavs only have the MLE to offer teams. So it doesn’t matter how much money Gilbert wants to spend, he can’t outbid other teams for free agents. I think fans are getting too worked up about not signing Artest or Ariza (who nobody thought would sign with Cleveland this offseason anyways) and forgetting the big acquisition of Shaq. Remember, this team won 66 games last season so it’s not like they need to make big changes.
by Buckeye Brad on Jul 6, 2009 5:13 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
yeah, there’s just no telling who offered what to whom. i don’t think the cavs actually offered a deal to anyone but artest, and i would say they were pretty smart to stay away from just about everyone else. you tie up money just for the sake of tying up money, and you end up with larry hughes, donyell marshall and damon jones weighing down your cap. remember, this was a VERY weak FA class.
the ariza signing was puzzling, but mostly b/c he allegedly turned down more money in TOR. that i don’t get. i think time will show that the cavs were smart (or maybe lucky) to stay away from him.
i’ll say one more time, to agree with you, that shaquille remains the biggest acquisition in the entire NBA this offseason. no one should lose sight of that.
by DontCallMeJoey on Jul 6, 2009 5:54 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I remember hearing during the playoffs that Ariza felt he was better than LBJ in high school and that he should have been getting the same type of hype. I wonder if there is any bad blood there. Could be a media sensationalist thing, could be a legit reason an Ariza/LeBron locker room wouldn’t have worked.
by rufio on Jul 6, 2009 10:02 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
you said:
I would’ve been more worried about the Cavaliers going into next season had they acquired an athletic wing
to me, that implies you would have been more concerned about the cavs if they had kept ben and sasha (aka not acquired shaq), and instead acquired trevor ariza. which is so wrong it’s funny.
Cleveland does need an athletic wing, with some height. Ariza at this point in his career is better than Delonte West
i believe you’ll find that every team needs something, every year. the cavs addressed their biggest issue w/ shaq — defending the paint. to say they “need” a bigger wing player is a stretch, and the FA season isn’t even done. what’s more, you’ll notice that west is cheaper than ariza, already under the cavs’ control, and arguably as good as ariza.
allow me to say here that i believe ariza is being WAY overrated as a result of his playoff performance and this year’s weak FA class. i’m not even convinced the cavs offered him a deal.
by DontCallMeJoey on Jul 6, 2009 5:45 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
hans, this is great. very informative, very well reasoned, and, as always, backed up with hard numbers. well done.
for the lakers, ariza’s WARP was 5.0, and artest’s was 4.9…giving them a net -0.1.
by DontCallMeJoey on Jul 6, 2009 12:21 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
It's not possible to know how "hard" Ferry, LeBron and the Cavs
pushed to get any of these players. The media and most fans try to paint it that the Cavs “lost out” on this player or that player but it is unclear what the level of interest was and how much the Cavs were willing to pay to acquire them. Only a true insider would know.
Ferry and Co. have a plan and it appears to me that they are only willing to deviate from it if it makes sense and does not create detours to the long term aims and health of the organization. I don’t think any of the FA’s were players we needed at “any cost”.
I am reasonably sure the Cavs will be a better team this season by adding Shaq. They should be better equipped to compete with Orlando, Boston and LA. It remains to be seen how the other contenders will do.
So I told her," I'll be nicer if you try to be smarter!'..That was a mistake.
by Juannieboy on Jul 6, 2009 2:14 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Loving the advanced stats.
However, Hollinger’s numbers had me pretty confident about the Cavs/Magic series, and that kinda fell apart. Clearly, at this point the Cavs don’t need to add regular season wins, they need to add playoff wins. So are there any specific playoff metrics?
Also, are these lifetime stats?
by rufio on Jul 6, 2009 2:24 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Also, are these lifetime stats?
No, just the numbers from last season. Using lifetime stats would be a problem since most of these players discussed are past their primes.
at this point the Cavs don’t need to add regular season wins
I understand your point and I do agree that the Cavs ran into some major matchup problems with the Magic last year, but to plan on both the Cavs and Magic ending up having to play each other in the playoffs again this year and focusing only on that would be reckless. The Magic were one loss away from not even making it to the ECF last season as Boston pushed them to a 7 game series. But in any case a better Cavs team this year than last year will only improve the chances that they can handle any opponent in the playoffs. And I’d like to see how the Magic do against a healthy Boston team that even more so than the Cavs right now can handle the matchups with D. Howard and the perimeter shooters.
by hans on Jul 6, 2009 2:43 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yea, I think one thing that hurts the Magic is that they probably could have expected an improvement from both Gortat and Courtney Lee over their previous numbers. They now have Vinsanity who is on the way down.
by Roger Dorn on Jul 6, 2009 7:32 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I didn’t intend to sound like I think we should change the team to match up better against the Magic, per se. We just need to match up against teams of the Magic’s level: Boston, Orlando, LA, maybe Denver, etc. We didn’t just lose to Orlando, we lost to Boston the year before, and S.A. the year before that, etc.
Those “wins” above replacement player are regular season wins, right? Well, we had plenty of those last year, clearly. I don’t need to tell you how it went down.
A better Cavs team will truly do better in the playoffs. My question is whether the metrics accurately predict whether we are ultimately better. What will determine if we are ultimately better will not be “wins added”, it will be our playoff finish, right?
I would just like to see some metric(s) that get(s) rid of any good numbers thrown up against non-playoff teams and highlight performances against top-level competition. I am not trying to put that on you, but those dudes at MIT should hurry up.
I am also not trying to tell you that we aren’t better with Shaq. We didn’t give up much to get him and I think we are pretty clearly better equipped for the postseason with him on the team. I just don’t know if any metric is telling us exactly why right now.
by rufio on Jul 6, 2009 10:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
at this point the Cavs don’t need to add regular season wins, they need to add playoff wins. So are there any specific playoff metrics?
Here’s the thing: playoff stats shouldn’t really be any different from regular season stats. Of course, in one or two seasons they might be, but that’s because the sample size for playoff games is much smaller than the regular season. If you only play 8 or 10 playoff games then a few exceptionally good or bad games skew that data. You always want to look at the larger sample because that will give you a better representation of actual value.
There’s nothing really special about building for the playoffs, unless you mean building your team to face a certain opponent and that’s dangerous because you could very likely not end up playing that team. The Cavs were built to face Boston this past season, and probably would have beaten them, but they got Orlando which was a bad matchup for them and they lost. We can try to build our team to face Orlando this year, but what if we don’t face them? As hans said, they almost lost to Boston last year without KG. If you build your team to win regular season games then playoff wins will come.
I know the media makes a big deal about playoff performances, and label some players “clutch” because they have a few big playoff games and other players “playoff flops” because they had a few bad games, but in reality that’s just variation from small samples. If a player plays great over 82 regular season games then he should play great in the playoffs. In the playoffs, though, certain matchups can exploit a player’s weakness or strengths which makes him look like a better/worse player, but you can’t plan for certain matchups in the playoffs. You have to build your team to be great in the regular season and hope that continues in the playoffs.
by Buckeye Brad on Jul 6, 2009 5:24 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Here’s the thing: playoff stats shouldn’t really be any different from regular season stats.
Doesn’t it seem logical to think that it will be harder to be as efficient against a (presumably) better defensive player/team? I think it is fair to assume that a given player would have a lower TS% against Kendrick Perkins and the Celtics than against, say, Roy Hibbert and the Pacers.
Similarly, it would seem to be easier to be more defensively efficient against Monte Ellis than against Kobe Bryant.
I’m not trying to talk about a world in which all of a sudden it’s the playoffs and A-Rod disappears in to thin air because of the time of year. I am talking about players’/teams’ ability to be offensively and defensively efficient against the top level of competition. Not certain specific matchups, just matchups against the top 8 or even 16 teams.
If I consistently have a great game against non-playoff teams but consistently play horribly against the teams considered to be “elite”, don’t my PER, TS%, and other metrics inflate my worth just a little? That would be like bragging about my 1200 yard rushing season in the NFC North when 400 of those yards came against Detroit, no?
I’m not trying to say I do understand the metrics, here, I am trying to learn more about them.
by rufio on Jul 6, 2009 10:33 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I understand what you’re saying, but as hans said below, if you’re going to look at the Cavs’ players’ numbers against only top competition then you also have to look at other teams’ numbers against top competition. You’re right that everyone’s number wil probably go down, but it’s not like the Cavs are the only team that beat up on bad teams and inflate their numbers that way. Every elite team does that.
by Buckeye Brad on Jul 7, 2009 11:38 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hollinger (and any other stat guy) will be the first to tell you not to expect the numbers to be perfect predictors.
by 7foot3 on Jul 6, 2009 9:00 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I am pretty sure I understand randomness just fine. I’m not trying to get all reactionary to the Orlando series. I might be reactionary about the Orlando series, the Boston series, and the San Antonio series combined with the possibility of losing LBJ.
I still see metrics not taking in to account the level of competition. This isn’t a coinflip, the odds are not always even. Sure, any given team can win any given game/series and the odds are always odds. I get that. I still think the odds of Mo making a given jumper against Phoenix are better than the odds of Mo making a given jumper against Boston. Maybe that’s dumb.
by rufio on Jul 6, 2009 10:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah but you are ignoring the Cavs in your observation. Sure the Celtics or Magic are going to be tougher defenses than the Cavs would be playing during the regular season on avg., but the Cavs’ offense (4th best in ORtg last season) is much better than the offenses the Celtics and Magic play on avg. during the season. So I’d say its just as fair to say that the odds of Ray Allen being in position to defending a shot is more likely against Indiana than Cleveland.
by hans on Jul 7, 2009 12:05 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
That seems logical to me, but I don’t understand how it goes against what I suggested. If Ray Allen is not able to defend Mo as well as T.J. Ford, Ray Allen is probably still able to defend better than Willie Green. Green would probably have a similar disparity, being able to guard T.J. better than he could guard Mo.
So would there be a way to compile a defensive statistic to measure how a team does against offensively efficient teams? Or how they do offensively against defensively efficient teams?
by rufio on Jul 7, 2009 12:28 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
So would there be a way to compile a defensive statistic to measure how a team does against offensively efficient teams? Or how they do offensively against defensively efficient teams?
One could be made without too much trouble (just look at a team’s performance against a certain set of teams through the regular season), but I don’t know why you’d assume that the data is skewed/counfounded by including all the available opponents in a regular season. I go back to the point that whatever difficulty you are leveraging against the Cavs is generally going to be leveraged against the other teams (Boston, LA, Orlando, etc) so the end result should not be changed by only looking at efficient teams. Lebron could with more ease put up fifty points on the Bobcats than on the Celtics, but the exact same can be said about Kevin Garnett, that he could put up fifty points more easily on the Bobcats than the Cavs.
by hans on Jul 7, 2009 1:40 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
If there was a significant difference of the extent to which the Cavs beat up on the Bobcats versus the extent to which the Celtics beat up on the Bobcats, that would alter the playoff-predicting capability of some of these stats, wouldn’t it? So as Brad said:
You’re right that everyone’s number wil probably go down, but it’s not like the Cavs are the only team that beat up on bad teams and inflate their numbers that way.
But is there/could there be a significant difference in exactly how much different teams/players’ numbers go down?
Like if it’s a 2 game season and Z puts up 25 points vs. the Bobcats and only 7 against the C’s whereas Z puts up 18 on the Cats and 14 on us, I’d tend to think KG is going to be the better player in the playoffs. (Points is probably not the best stat to use, so please excuse that)
Of course in the 2 game season it could be randomness, but if that was a trend over the course of an 80+ game season or perhaps over several years of a player’s career, then it might start to mean something, no?
by rufio on Jul 7, 2009 1:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, so much of the NBA is about matchups, so maybe Z puts up better numbers against the Bobcats than KG because they’re a better matchup for him (to continue your example). Even bad teams are strong in certain areas, so Z and Andy will play better against teams with strong guards while Mo and Delonte will play better against teams with strong post players. So if you’re looking at only playoff games, you have a large number of games against a few teams so matchups may sway the numbers one way or the other.
Nobody on the Cavs has played enough playoff games to analyze their playoff perfomance against their regular season perfomances. I suppose if they had played 200 or so playoff games then you might be able to compare them, but that would take a long career.
For example, I looked at Kobe Bryant’s career because he’s played for 13 seasons. In the regular season, he’s averaged 25.1 points, 4.6 assists, and 5.3 rebounds. In 175 playoff games, he’s averaged 25 points, 4.7 assists, and 5.1 rebounds. Those are almost exactly the same as his regular season stats. I know this is only one player, but I’m sure if you looked at other players with long careers and many playoff games you’d see the same thing. I didn’t post more advanced stats, like PER, ORtg, and DRtg, but those are about the same, too. You can see them all here.
The bottom line is that players should be expected to play in the playoffs as well as they play in the regular season. Theoretically, it should be harder to put up stats in the playoffs because you’re playing better teams, but the top players always play more minutes per game in the playoffs so that may explain why there isn’t a difference in stats.
by Buckeye Brad on Jul 7, 2009 2:33 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
i understand what you’re driving at with these various questions about playing against the “elite”, but i think you’re looking for something that’s ultimately not there. as brad says, the nba is so much about matchups…we may give up 70% shooting in the paint to orl, but only 35% to bos (those numbers are made up). we were pretty much exactly as likely to face bos as we were orl in the ecf. and if the answer to playing one well is the opposite of the answer to playing the other well…how do you optimize for that?
while players should be expected to replicate their career numbers in the playoffs, if you are indeed right and it’s harder to achieve those numbers, then across the board it is equally as hard for everyone…so it more or less evens out.
by DontCallMeJoey on Jul 7, 2009 4:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
My inquiry is not whether or not it is more difficult to achieve certain numbers in the playoffs (or even simply against “good teams”), but if there is a difference in that increase in difficulty between two players or teams. Essentially if it really does “even out” or not.
For instance, that link that 7foot3 posted shows we had the best net points against “Poor” and “Average” teams, but LA had the best net points against “Good” teams.
Let’s assume for a little that playing a “good” team will make it harder for every team to have more net points. It still seems to have been less of an increase in difficulty for LA and more of a difficulty for us.
Whatever, this really doesn’t matter. Some of/the best stats we do have say that we are better with Shaq and that we shouldn’t panic because other teams are signing FAs, which goes hand in hand with what makes sense intuitively. We are in great shape to win a title, and have arguably the best player in basketball on the court.
by rufio on Jul 8, 2009 6:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
well, i think it clearly evens out, but there are different starting points, right? my point is not that all playoff teams are created equal.
for example, the lakers had the best net points against good teams, as you point out…they’re starting out ahead of everyone else in the playoffs. it still gets harder for them to perform at the highest levels, as it does every other team, but they start from a greater altitude.
havearguablythe best player in basketball on the court.
fixed…
by DontCallMeJoey on Jul 8, 2009 7:28 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
82games does take into account the level of competition for some things here and here
And I’m not sure where you get the conclusion that Hollinger’s predictions just fell apart.
by 7foot3 on Jul 7, 2009 9:10 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
“Fell apart” might be a poor choice of words on my part. How about “were significantly misleading”? “Did not come close to successfully predicting the outcome of the series”?
Sure there is a degree of randomness to it, but it certainly seemed to me while watching the games that the odds were not as stacked in our favor as Hollinger (and just about every other analyst “stat geek” or otherwise) predicted.
Loving those 82games stats.
by rufio on Jul 8, 2009 6:15 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t understand the concern about “losing out” on players. I actually think the Cavs are in tremendous position. As outlined here, they have already improved more than others and LAL and Boston have blown their entire MLE. There is plenty of talent still available that can fill the Cavs needs and the Cavs are one of the few buyers remaining. The market is only improving for us. It is getting so good that we will probably be able to pick up a solid role player at less than the full MLE which will leave us cap space for next year and leave us cash in the MLE to pick up a released player mid-season ala Joe Smith last year.
by dvd1204 on Jul 6, 2009 6:13 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I agree with your thinking here. Anyone else get the feeling the Cavs are kind of “bullying” teams into over paying some of these guys? It kind of feels like a setup for next offseason. Let’s make the trade, hopefully re-sign AV, and roll the dice. Then next year we have all the cap space in the world. Would it be 2 max and 2 MLE? I think they get the second MLE for the every other year thing, but not too sure.
by sether1 on Jul 6, 2009 9:59 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
They won’t have all the cap space in the world next year. The only way to get Bosh, which would almost certainly require a max contract, would be to not sign any other players to a contract longer than just next year. And even then, its going to take a bit of luck with where the salary cap is set. And you can only get 1 MLE a year, but the Cavs have a pretty good chance of having more cap space than what all the exceptions are worth, so they’d just renounce their MLE and BAE anyway.
by 7foot3 on Jul 6, 2009 10:27 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
or if they are creative and bosh is willing to be a little forgiving they can structure the contract so hes getting paid less in the first year and then getting a lot more in the final years of the contract, and ive heard rumors that bosh really wants to play with lebron so i think he would take less in the first year if thats what it takes for us to afford him
by CavsLebronFan on Jul 7, 2009 7:21 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
if he takes less in the first year, then he takes less for the life of the contract than he could get elsewhere. there are prescribed raises in the CBA that are designed to short-circuit exactly the type of cap manipulation that you outline here.
he may still want to play w/ LeBron, but a pay cut is a pay cut.
by DontCallMeJoey on Jul 7, 2009 11:02 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
So lets say we only use the MLE and the other exemption we have. Those are 1 year deals, right? And then if the cap is set high enough (something we have no control over), we could get Bosh?
What if we resign Andy?
by rufio on Jul 7, 2009 1:52 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
MLE and bi-annual exceptions can be used to sign longer deals (bi-annual up to 2 years). they just set the first year’s salary.
IF we only do one-year deals at the MLE or bi-annual, and then resign AV to a reasonable contract, we’re still going to be tight as far as signing a second (non-LeBron) max deal next year. there are various “cap holds” that assign values to roster slots, for the purposes of calc’ing cap room, even if there are only, say, 7 players under contract.
by DontCallMeJoey on Jul 7, 2009 4:28 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
They’re going to be tight without re-signing AV. With AV, there is no max contract.
by 7foot3 on Jul 7, 2009 9:12 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
depends on the cap and the MLE/biannual
by DontCallMeJoey on Jul 7, 2009 9:32 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Do we need to do the math again? Assuming they keep Lebron (if not, the discussion is pretty much moot) and Varejao (as you said), and I’m going to guess those 2 get 25 mill combined and they don’t dump any salaries, they’re going to be right about 49 mill in payroll. The cap this year will be 57.7. It’s not going up enough for this team to get a second max contract.
by 7foot3 on Jul 7, 2009 10:14 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
there are all kinds of ways that the cavs can pull off another max next year. you’re very certain that there is no chance they can get a second max deal, and that’s just not true.
maybe it’s unlikely that they can straight up sign a second max (even though they’re closer to 47mm than 49mm for next year), but the cap’s going up in 10/11. 7mm? probably not, but from 00/01 – 01/02 it went up 7mm, from 04/05 – 05/06 it went up 6mm, and another 4mm from 05/06 – 06/07. so it’s not the world’s longest shot, especially considering the cap is going down in 09/10 for the first time since 02/03, although i’ll allow it is very unlikely.
additionally, we could structure a z-based trade mid-season to acquire a max guy’s bird rights. we could structure a sign-and-trade in 12 months that would send AV, MLE guy and boobie out for a max deal.
my point is: there are several not-hard-to-imagine ways in which the cavs could shoe-horn a max deal into the mix next summer. while i appreciate that it’s your opinion that such is unlikely, stop stating it as well-established fact.
by DontCallMeJoey on Jul 7, 2009 11:44 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
First off, this. Secondly, we can argue over every last dollar again and again, but I’m not sure where you’re getting closer to 47 mill.
And I haven’t thrown out the trade possibility, I’ve only said they’re not going to have the cap room to get a second max guy, and there’s real point trying to save up for one. They might have more than the exceptions in cap space (though with the recent NBA memo, probably not anymore) and be able to outbid teams just using their MLE next year, but that’s it.
This is basically the conversation:
And then if the cap is set high enough (something we have no control over), we could get Bosh?
we’re still going to be tight as far as signing a second (non-LeBron) max deal next year.
This is true, if and only if, they don’t spend another dime towards against the 2010/11 cap, and that is a well-established fact.
by 7foot3 on Jul 8, 2009 6:21 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
well, that article/video is huge. thanks for pointing that out.
while the trade possibility still exists, given that the luxury tax line is expected to be around $61mm, i think you become more right that a second max is HIGHLY unlikely.
the good news is, LeBron’s a cav beyond 09-10…not that i had any doubt.
by DontCallMeJoey on Jul 8, 2009 11:22 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
So almost no way we simply sign a 2nd max guy?
by rufio on Jul 8, 2009 6:44 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nobody is going to be able to
so that is at least an even playing field
Baseball is God's sport! All Truth Goes Through Three Stages 1.It is ridiculed 2.It is violently opposed 3.Finally, it is accepted as self-evident. kinesiologist
by E5 on Jul 8, 2009 9:22 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
BAE – Bi-Annual exception. Worth a lot less than the MLE
by 7foot3 on Jul 7, 2009 9:11 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Just to clear things up..
“The Lakers for example have made the headlines in bringing in Ron Artest, a big name in the free agent market for sure, but the cost of bringing him in was the loss of Trevor Ariza, who then signed with Artest’s former team the Houston Rockets.”
Apparently Ariza was offered the Full MLE but Ariza’s agent took offense at the "disrespectful"offer and threatened to cut off negotiations.
."A source tells HOOPSWORLD that Kupchak was prepared to give Ariza an offer equivalent to the full MLE but at 10.5% raises, totaling at approximately $33.8 million over five years.
LA’s ceiling might have been a $6 million starting salary for $36 million over five but before negotiations progressed after 9:00pm Pacific on Tuesday night, the source says that Ariza’s agent, David Lee, took a confrontational approach with Kupchak.
Lee wanted a deal in the $50 million range and took offense to the team’s stance that Trevor should test the market first for that level of compensation.
By the next morning, the Lakers were going after Artest in full force with Kobe Bryant, Lamar Odom and even Magic Johnson reaching out to the Houston forward."
Trevor’s agent played hardball and got burned. Trevor was on a LA radio station today and sounded pretty dejected and said he was sad to leave his hometown but blamed the business aspect of the NBA.
Also Ron-Ron said he went to the Lakers because they were the first ones to really express interest in him. He also said that he WAS talking with LeBron at the time but they did not really talk basketball. He called LeBron a good guy or stad-up guy or something to that effect
by UnleashTheMamba on Jul 6, 2009 11:50 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Very impressed
I have to say that is the most informed break down I have read of the Ariza situation. Everyone just wants to write about this situation with speculation without first looking at the facts. Because of David Lee (Ariza’s Agent) the Lakers were left with a choice. Gamble that Ariza will wait, or have Luke Walton at the SF position OR…sign Artest. That is a no brainer….
by PURPLE AND GOLD FOR LIFE on Jul 8, 2009 7:57 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think the Lakers
had enough of Lee’s crap the way he took bynum’s negotiations to the public in the LA papers. big potential 5’s have a lot more leverage than spot-up 3’s (even if ariza does play defense), and the lakers were not going to play the same game this time, especially with all the other options they had and the economy the way it was. odom was way more important to kupchak than ariza.
by whorge on Jul 10, 2009 6:13 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I updated the original article to included the Marcin Gortat signing with Dallas. Orlando now is -3.1 WARP so far this offseason.
by hans on Jul 7, 2009 8:35 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I think Ariza is a dolt for going to Houston.
He had a chance to play for something in Cleveland with LeBron and Shaq. Instead he goes to Houston? How good can Houston be w/o Yao and Artest? I think he’ll regret not signing with the Cavs. He’ll end up like Michael Redd unless he worms his way outta there.
So I told her," I'll be nicer if you try to be smarter!'..That was a mistake.
by Juannieboy on Jul 8, 2009 1:50 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
at least redd went for more money. ariza (allegedly) turned down the same cash to go play w/ carl landry. yikes.
by DontCallMeJoey on Jul 8, 2009 3:19 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Although, as someone smartly pointed out the other day, Texas has no state income tax so he’ll actually get to keep more of his money playing in Houston compared to Cleveland.
by Buckeye Brad on Jul 8, 2009 4:53 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Which is a sales pitch used by sports teams in Florida and Texas.
Weather and Taxes
by Roger Dorn on Jul 8, 2009 5:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
He wanted to start
he didn’t want to have to play off the bench. I think Cleveland already has a pretty good small forward.
by UnleashTheMamba on Jul 9, 2009 12:01 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ariza was going to play the 2 in Cleveland.
by Buckeye Brad on Jul 9, 2009 8:47 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ariza?? No thanks... Hey check this out
The Cavs were looking to sign Ariza at the full MLE to challenge West for the starting 2 spot. Am I on crack or arent there 2 other guys namely Matt Barnes in PHX and Linas Kleiza in Denver who could both do the same and at a much cheaper price tag. Both are value swingmen at the 2 or 3 and could add depth and size to the backcourt where it is desperately needed. They are both knockdown shooters from kleiza behind the arc barnes more mid range and they are both solid defensively and bring good energy. Both of these guys posted better numbers than Ariza with Barnes being a 5th option in Phx and Kleiza off the bench in denver. I think Ferry should look hard because both these guys could be signed( Kleiza is restricted though and denver does want him back) but these are 2 potential steals in FA IMO. not to mention they are both young and are still developing and have good potential to stick around for awhile.
by Cavs4 life on Jul 8, 2009 7:35 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
You are right about one thing only
M. Barnes and Kleiza are slightly better than Ariza when it comes to shooting. But that margin is even smaller if you compare the playoffs. On top of that they are no where near as good defensively as Ariza. If that was the case then why haven’t they signed with other teams already. You yourself said that they come at a lower price. Why do you think that is? At a minimum Ariza was going to sign for the MLE and neither one of these players garnished that much attention to be offered the MLE. I have a feeling you might be saying this only because he already signed with Houston or is about to.
by PURPLE AND GOLD FOR LIFE on Jul 8, 2009 7:54 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Word on the street...
Cavs are signing Raptors FA swingman Anthony Parker, who is actually a slightly better version of Barnes and “a better defender” Looks like Ferry is following my advice after all. Mark my words people if this trend continues, the only thing standing in the Cavs way of a chip this year is poor coaching and/or strategy and injuries. Andy is getting too much money but it looks as if he is coming back as well. Thats a good thing now because his chemistry with the team and his hustle are gonna be vital but, he will eventually go the way of the Ben and be a burden with a fat contract on someone else’s payroll… hopefully. If we can develop Jackson well he will become a solid backup 4 this year. I think Danny Green will beat out Kinsey for the backup 2-3 if all goes well. Go Cavs!!!
by Cavs4 life on Jul 9, 2009 1:01 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
No not at all...
and yes Ariza has signed with Houston. 1st off I didn’t say that either Kleiza or Barnes was better than Ariza I said they posted better numbers than Ariza playing in reduced roles from what Ariza was in. Although considering PHX’s offense in the regular season if you were a starter and not in double figures scoring avg you shouldn’t even be in the NBA for a team that avg’d probably 110 pts a gm. Thats beside the point. What I was emphasizing is that here are 2 guys with great potential and because of their lack of teams success in the post-season could fill vital roles on the Cavs roster and in essence be a better fit than Ariza at a much better price tag. I personally think Ariza has been overrated because of the Lakers success this season obv. I just feel their are other guys who can be just as productive if not more so than him and be a better value i.e. Kleiza and Barnes. Defense is a matter of effort and tenacity and really isn’t a measure of player quality IMO. Reason being both the Lakers and the MAgic were horribly criticized midway through the playoffs for poor defense yet statistically they were two of the best teams defensively in the league. Case in point the houston and boston series respectively. Yet both teams stepped up their defensive play in the conference finals it was like night and day. I really don’t see Ariza being a star in Houston’s sky because of a lack of A-list talent for him to thrive with. I could be wrong time will tell. But without a Kobe or Gasol drawing attention away from him to get open looks and high percentage buckets I don’t see Ariza being to effective for Houston. I haven’t looked at the entire FA pool in detail but I’m sure their may be a few guys out there that can contribute well beyond their price tag and I hope the Cavs nab em. We still have needs even though I agree with the original post the most important need has been dealt with if not from just being an automatic for any team that had what we had to give up for a guy like Shaq. Toodles to Ferry for the most saavy move in FA thus far. Keep it comin bud. And be smart with the money. After all “Whats in a Name”
by Cavs4 life on Jul 8, 2009 8:38 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
singings so far
Obviously with the additon of the possible “Big Witness” , the middle is taken care of.
Resigning Andy will continue to move the basketball down low as lebron has a good feel when he is on the floor. Shaq is a good passer also and Andy is good at going to spots on the floor for the ball.
They added an outside threat in Anthony Parker who can also handle the rock. They in my opinion just need one more piece in the 3-4 spot and the CAVS got the title barring injuries!
by faithwalker_98 on Jul 9, 2009 10:24 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I updated this following the Anthony Parker signing.
Also here’s Anderson Varejao’s numbers for sake of considering what we would have lost had we not resigned him.
Anderson Varejao: 5.5 WARP, 14.6 PER, 116 ORtg 100 DRtg.
Varejao looks to be much more valuable than most of us think he is.
by hans on Jul 9, 2009 4:41 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
4th in the NBA in DRtg last year, 20th in ORtg. i’d say a lot more valuable than many think.
question on DRtg: how does it account for opponents? for example, i’m trying to reconcile how wally’s DRtg last year was 105, and parker’s was 111. the only thing i could come up with was that parker had to guard the LeBron’s, Kobe’s, Melo’s of the world. but i don’t know quite how DRtg deals w/ that.
by DontCallMeJoey on Jul 9, 2009 5:19 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think you are onto it with regards to position impacting the rating, also sample size can be an issue.
by hans on Jul 14, 2009 11:07 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
What do you all think about the Orlando Magic matching the Martin Gortat contract to bring him back? I’d say this is a bit unexpected and certainly helps them out now that they keep him and signed Bass.
by hans on Jul 14, 2009 11:06 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
i’m rather surprised that they chose to match, but it’s a good move. gortat is getting better all the time, and he and bass make for a pretty formidable bench frontcourt. i’m figuring the cavs believe that jj hickson is their very own brandon bass, b/c i was really surprised to see minimal mention of cavs involvement in the bass talks.
by DontCallMeJoey on Jul 14, 2009 11:46 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah a mini breakout year from Hickson would go a long way next season.
by hans on Jul 14, 2009 12:33 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agree. Although I felt better when Howard was on the bench in that series, it wasn’t like we could completely leave Gortat on the offensive end and he still did alright defensively against us.
Surprised they did it but a good move.
by rufio on Jul 15, 2009 8:44 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Cavs need a all-star shooting guard.
I agree they got Shaq for nothing,but they already had a good center. Perfect for the team. They have Mo Williams a top ten point guard maybe. Anderson is over paid,and they need a better power forward. The problem is not Anderson,but there lack of another player taking the pressure off Lebron on the wing. Mo Williams is not that man. They should have traded uo for Vince Carter over Shaq,or maybe go out for T-Mac. Adding Parker,and Jamiro MOON does not solve the problems for the Cavs. If Shaq is not what the Cavs expect. The Cavs could fall behind the Hawks in the confrence. My family love the Cavs,and I have a soft spot for them to do well. Good luck in 2010
by green20 on Jul 19, 2009 3:20 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Behind the Hawks?
Not with Lebron on this team. Your can’t be serious. The Hawks are a mid of the playoff team no matter how much they improve they will not be better than the Cavs. Sure having a shooting guard to take pressure off Lebron would be nice but really Shaq will help with that because even thought he is older he still is a physical beast few can defend in the low post.
Baseball is God's sport! All Truth Goes Through Three Stages 1.It is ridiculed 2.It is violently opposed 3.Finally, it is accepted as self-evident. kinesiologist
by E5 on Jul 19, 2009 6:46 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
They had a center who played offense like a small forward, knocking down 18 footers with regularity but not able to do much in the post outside of tip ins. Now they have a center who can defend the post against big bodied types and can score in the post adding a new dimension to the Cavs’ offense. Vince Carter is all offense and no defense, that doesn’t really fit in well on this team, where a guy like Shaq is both defense and offensive upgrade. I don’t see how this is hard for others to figure out. Plus, as I pointed out we got him for minimal cost and still look to be the top team of the team’s I have discussed in improving themselves based on WARP.
by hans on Jul 21, 2009 1:03 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
If the Cavs have a good defensive system?
Vince should adjust then. Like Ray Allen,or Paul Pierce did. Players should be able to adjust. Shaq’s show maybe will effect him?
by green20 on Jul 21, 2009 1:16 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I do tend to think “maybe player X will get better at defense now that he’s with us” if I like him and “Player Y will never be a good fit for us because he doesn’t play defense” if I don’t like him.
I still don’t think it’s a big deal that we missed out on Carter. We would have had to have given up something we didn’t want to give up, and Vince is past his prime anyway.
by rufio on Jul 21, 2009 1:34 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah you bring up an excellent point, no where is it stated that the Nets would have chosen Ben Wallace and Sasha for Carter instead of the offer they received from Orlando which included at least one player that could turn into a decent player and couple other players that can contribute (Battie and Alston) enough to not be black holes on a team. Orlando payed more for Carter than we payed for O’Neal.
The follow up to this is, if we get Carter than we still are left without any additions in the front court to replace Ben Wallace’s minutes and pick up the slack as Z starts to require more rest (or is injured due to age).
by hans on Jul 21, 2009 1:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Cavs could fall behind the Hawks in the confrence.
Maybe if Marvin Williams suddenly morphs in to Kobe Bryant. Maybe.
by rufio on Jul 21, 2009 1:34 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Socialize With FearTheSword
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
