Points in the Paint 04.14.09: The Almost Playoff Edition

Posted by Rob Bonnette on 04.14.2009

Me vs. John Hollinger (again), and draft opinions!

Hello everyone and welcome to a Playoffs Almost Here edition of Points in the Paint. This week I take more shots at John Hollinger, speak a little on the draft as well as Allen Iverson. Enjoy!

Me vs. John Hollinger!

As I wind things down here, I'm going to have to a last shot or two at some of my favorite targets. First up is john Hollinger of ESPN.com, the creator of the vaunted Player Efficiency Rating system. What is it that I don't like about Mr. Hollinger's system? One thing, really: it's wrong. The results of his rankings are usually very predictable at the top, and downright strange when you venture a little bit further down. For example, his small forward rankings have Lebron first, no problem, then Danny Granger and Kevin Durant. I got no quarrel with that. But then, once you get down to number six we have……Brandan Wright of the Golden State Warriors. Ahead of Caron Butler and Paul Pierce. I'm really sure there are a boatload of people out there willing to take Wright over Butler and Pierce. I know, I know, Wright is only in his second year, has upside, and will be still be playing in seven years when both Butler and Pierce may both be retired. I don't care. I'd sign Butler or Pierce to a seven year contract right now before Wright. Wright plays all of 17 minutes per game, and shoots a whopping 52.8 percent from the field on the six shots per game he gets. He scores eight points a game and pulls down four rebounds. But because he does this in only 17 minutes of playing time, he's labeled more efficient than Butler or Pierce, who both play 30-plus minutes a night, take (and miss) more shots, and turn the ball over more (because they touch it so much more than Wright). Wright only turns the ball over .6 times a game. Of course, he only gets six shots a night and maybe a handful more touches; he has so many fewer chances to turn the ball over that there's no way he'd have as many as players like Pierce or Butler, who often lead their team in scoring and shot attempts. Wright's teammate Anthony Randolph is ranked ninth, ahead of Josh Howard and Ron Artest. Like Wright, Randolph benefits from playing short minutes (15 per night); he gets six shot attempts and shoots 46 percent from the floor, scores seven points and gets five rebounds. He also turns the ball over at a low rate, 1.3 per game. But again, he's guaranteed to have fewer turnovers because he doesn't touch the ball very much.

It doesn't end with small forwards, though. Point guard is another position of dubious rankings. We start off fine with Chris Paul and Tony Parker at one and two, but as soon as we hit number seven it goes bad. Nate Robinson is seventh, ahead of Steve Nash, Chauncey Billups, Jose Calderon, Andre Miller, Rajon Rondo, and Jason Kidd. Now just which one of those guys would you trade for Robinson? Robinson benefits from playing Mike D'Antoni's seven seconds or less system; he's also not the starting point guard (even though he does play starters minutes) so he doesn't get the amount of turnovers that starter Chris Duhon does. The idea that Nate Robinson would be chosen before any of those I listed is ludicrous, yet Hollinger's system suggests he is the seventh best point guard in the entire league. Power forward is just as bad; Chris Andersen is eleventh, ahead of David West, Carlos Boozer, Rashard Lewis, Luis Scola, Josh Smith, Lamar Odom, Andrea Bargnani, and Rasheed Wallace. Andersen gets a skewed rating because he only plays 20.3 minutes per game and only takes four shots a night. His field goal percentage is very good (55 percent), but it's only based on four attempts. He rebounds well (6.1 per game), which is fine, but he also has a low turnover rate (0.9 per game) that is skewed by the fact that he only takes four shots and gets maybe ten touches total on offense; there just aren't many chances to steal the ball from him or force him into dribbling it out bounds or whatever. Shooting guard is the only position that isn't that out of whack, probably because you don't have a lot of guys shooting 50 percent and up so the formula doesn't get messed up.

Look, I'm all for trying to come up with a credible statistical system to determine which players are as good as advertised. Any system that can prove to people that Josh Smith isn't as good as his highlight reel suggests or that Ron Artest is better for the Rockets than Tracy McGrady is welcome. I'll all for being to figure out whether or not I'd want Danny Granger or Kevin Durant by looking at the numbers and not having to look at hours of game footage. But when a guy can play reserve minutes and take a handful of shots and rate higher than an All-Star who plays almost forty minutes a night, carries his team, and is an obviously better player the system that ranks him such cannot be trusted. Statistical models also cannot take into account what kind of drive a player has. There's no way to measure when a Dirk Nowitzki will allow a Udonis Haslem or James Posey or Stephen Jackson to take him out of the game, or how Chris Webber would finish a game with 25 points, 20 of which he scored before the game was on the line. Until you can find a way to statistically measure that, then just give it a rest for now.

College ball musings

With the NCAA Tournament over, a lot of attention is going towards the upcoming draft. It's obvious that Blake Griffin should be the first player taken but after that who knows. This class is already being called one of the weakest in recent memory, but I don't see it being as bad as the 2000 draft. That theme is being spread by the usual suspects, the guys who have to evaluate the available talent for the draft. You see, these guys either want an obvious All Star like Lebron or some guy with a boatload of potential that they can mold into a great player. They hate picking guys who go on to become good players, but not superstars. They'd much rather gamble on the next would be Kevin Garnett than grab a surer thing like Tayshaun Prince or Josh Howard. To them, taking Howard at 29 is boring, but going all in for Kwame Brown at number one is freaking awesome. But there really aren't many guys like that in this year's group, so the scouts are upset. They hate scouting people that they can only rate as potential starters or rotation guys; it's just one reason why Tyler Hansborough has fallen so far in four years.

Now don't get me wrong, I think Hansborough will fall somewhere between Mark Madsen and Jeff Foster on the productivity scale (I know, I compared the white guy to two other white guys. That's sportswriting 101; always compare players to guys the same color even if they don't play the same way.) Foster is very good rebounder and a solid rotation guy, so that wouldn't be so bad, but Madsen is a designated fouler and sideline cheerleader, which isn't so good. He'll stick around for a while, though; Don Reid played six years in the league and Adonal Foyle lasted for ten. Psycho T having a decade long career is definitely a possibility. But it's no fun for a scout to determine if a player Hansborough can actually have a Foster-esque career or if he is just another Madsen, even though you could win some more games if you draft him and he turns out to be the former. So you just go ahead and call him the next Mark Madsen and get on with life looking for the next could be KG.

Another guy to watch out for Brandon Jennings; he reportedly did just OK overseas and may be testing the draft waters this year. To be honest, I'm not a fan. He'll likely do well in workouts and whatnot, but that's no indication of whether or not he can actually play at the NBA level. Remember, Sebastian Telfair did better in workouts than Jameer Nelson, but there's no doubt who the better pro is now. I'd draft Ty Lawson over Jennings; I don't care what SLAM magazine or anyone else out there thinks.

The Iverson Situation

Well, that sure got ugly quick, didn't it. Allen Iverson comes back from injury, gets relegated to bench player minutes (in the teens), gets pissed about it, then gets hurt again and shut down for the season. And of course, the Iverson bashers opened fire as they always do when they get the chance. Now I've transformed over the years from a hater to a near apologist for the man, so I'm not totally objective here. I wasn't big on the Detroit deal from day one; someone like him going to a starless system like the Pistons was always doomed to failure, and I've always believed that GM Joe Dumars was really going for the salary dump in 2009, not trying to retool for one more run. And I'll be the first one to admit that Iverson has always been difficult to build a team for, but my problem is that people know what they're getting with him, so if you're not willing to build the team around him properly then why get him in the first place? Everyone saw how things worked when he led the Sixers to the Finals in 2001, but no one has tried that with him since. The Sixers screwed things up immediate afterward with a procession of Derrick Coleman, Glenn Robinson, Keith Van Horn, and finally Chris Webber to play alongside him. Denver was never a good idea, because they already had a high shot taker in Carmelo Anthony on the team, and Detroit for the reason I mentioned earlier. Now I know Iverson himself is to blame for some of this; he could have adjusted his game somewhat to fit in better with Melo in Denver, but let's not get stupid and think that giving a few more shots to Van Horn or Robinson would have mattered. As you can see, I'm all over the place on this. What do you guys think?

OK, that's it for this week. Later this week I'll have a playoff preview. Until then…