[Grades] Grades v. Lakers 3/15/2016

[VF21]

I still feel like Marco didnt suddenly forget how to shoot a basketball, he has just been somewhat misused all season. He is not the type of player who can run those Klay/Ray Allen/Reggie/Redick full speed sprint thru screens or come off curls catch and shoot guys, especially against another teams starters. He never has been athletic enough to finish the sets we run for him and we have wasted so many possessions trying to feature him. He is a situational spot up shooter/floor spacer who can be effective with a faster paced 2nd unit as he was in San Antonio. Get a coach in here who actually maximizes his players talents/tailors a system to what his players do best instead of forcing them into a mismatched offense and I believe Marco will be just fine......slightly overpaid, but not completely useless.

It's almost like they stand in the huddle, decide the one thing Marco can't do is shoot off the curl and then come out onto the court and immediately have him run off the curl to shoot. Just one of the bizarre things that seems to happen over and over and over again...and if all of us can see it, why can't they? Hell, why doesn't Marco point it out? I'm sure he must know. (?)

 

[VF21]

Oh and VF21 and you should stop pulling rank on "young" people by claiming you watched 50 years of basketball, that's not nice and we can't match that .

Sorry, but at some point you'll be able to say the same thing.

 

[funkykingston]

I agree with most of it, but the thing I'd like to note is it 's not like WCS has bad +/- figures, but his +/- with Cousins is below average for him which is pretty rare.

I think that Cousins alongside a "traditional" non-spacing big is just not a good fit and unless WCS improve his offensive game dramatically it will still give Cousins only limited space- I would love to see Cousins paired with a 3pt shooter at the 4 (like Ryan Anderson many are advocating for)

No doubt if we are looking to maximize Boogie's offensive impact a PF who stretches the floor would be a better fit. But I always skew defense and so I'd rather have WCS starting games with a shooter (Anderson ideally) coming off the bench. In fact, I could see going to a Curry/Belinelli or SG to be named later/Casspi/Anderson/Cousins lineup and operating similarly to the way Houston did with Hakeem when the opposing team doesn't have anyone who can check DMC one-on-one. But I'd much rather have the scoring off the bench and set the tone defensively from the start.

The +/- for the WCS/DMC pairing raises some concern but I do think part of it is Cauley-Stein adjusting to the pro game and the two of them learning to play together. I'd be interested to see their +/- during the five game win streak. After Willie came back from the finger injury he looked significantly improved. And I think if he continues to get consistent minutes down the stretch he will improve and the WCS/DMC pairing will improve too.

And it's worth mentioning that maybe the thing that has bothered me the most this season is Karl's approach to defending the pick and roll. Cauley-Stein SHOULD be a fantastic weapon against the pick and roll. He's athletic enough to trap and not get completely burned, he can hedge and follow, he can show and he can certainly defend the sideline zone if the team decides to push (or ICE or Blue or whatever you want to call it) but the ONE action that makes him relatively ineffective is switching. Not because he can't contain most ballhandlers (at least briefly) but because it's giving away a mismatch easily and the pass almost always just goes to the roll man against a smaller defender.

+/- does take into account both ends of the floor and with a better defensive coach/scheme I think you'd see the Kings making strides on the defensive end with Boogie and Trill as the bigs. As long as Willie can do enough to stop teams from constantly doubling DeMarcus on the other end I think that +/- would go up.

I found it interesting that some thought he had bad hands, when he was a top rated wide receiver in high school. Bad hands and wide receiver don't go together. I haven't looked it up, but I would bet that he's shooting over 50% on his jump shots this season. What Willie hasn't had this season is much of an opportunity show off what he capable of on offense, and that's OK. He has plenty of time to polish his game, and it does need polish. But I firmly believe he already has a foundation to build on, and if he's able to do so, we could have something special. What Willie really needs to do is put on more muscle.

Not quite, but close. He's shooting 48% or so on jump shots.
http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/1626161/stats/shooting/

That said, he's only taken 46 of them in 52 games. When he's worked on that shot, is more comfortable using it and has the green light to do so I think the percentages will at least stay the same, if not increase. Certainly his percentage from 15-19 ft should.

 

[Amit149]

No doubt if we are looking to maximize Boogie's offensive impact a PF who stretches the floor would be a better fit. But I always skew defense and so I'd rather have WCS starting games with a shooter (Anderson ideally) coming off the bench. In fact, I could see going to a Curry/Belinelli or SG to be named later/Casspi/Anderson/Cousins lineup and operating similarly to the way Houston did with Hakeem when the opposing team doesn't have anyone who can check DMC one-on-one. But I'd much rather have the scoring off the bench and set the tone defensively from the start.

The +/- for the WCS/DMC pairing raises some concern but I do think part of it is Cauley-Stein adjusting to the pro game and the two of them learning to play together. I'd be interested to see their +/- during the five game win streak. After Willie came back from the finger injury he looked significantly improved. And I think if he continues to get consistent minutes down the stretch he will improve and the WCS/DMC pairing will improve too.

And it's worth mentioning that maybe the thing that has bothered me the most this season is Karl's approach to defending the pick and roll. Cauley-Stein SHOULD be a fantastic weapon against the pick and roll. He's athletic enough to trap and not get completely burned, he can hedge and follow, he can show and he can certainly defend the sideline zone if the team decides to push (or ICE or Blue or whatever you want to call it) but the ONE action that makes him relatively ineffective is switching. Not because he can't contain most ballhandlers (at least briefly) but because it's giving away a mismatch easily and the pass almost always just goes to the roll man against a smaller defender.

+/- does take into account both ends of the floor and with a better defensive coach/scheme I think you'd see the Kings making strides on the defensive end with Boogie and Trill as the bigs. As long as Willie can do enough to stop teams from constantly doubling DeMarcus on the other end I think that +/- would go up.

I would love to see Cousins surrounded with shooters it should be extremely hard to defend, on the defensive side I think people are a little overestimating how much we need WCS with him.

Cousins is actually a very good defensive center and rim-protector and our main problem comes from our non-existent perimeter defense.
WCS no doubt has value as an help defender and in a better scheme his abilities might have more impact on our defense (especially against the pick&roll as you mentioned), but I think that with better perimeter defenders we can have an average-to-good defense around Cousins with a great offense to go with it.

I do think in certain situations there will be need of both of them on the floor and WCS abillity to hit jumpers is encouraging but I guess I would just like to give the stretch 4 a chance.

During the five game win streak WCS/DMC were +5.2, which sounds really good until you mention that DMC/Belinelli had the same result , both tied as 5th best Cousins-featuring duo after:
DMC/Rondo: +14.6
DMC/Gay: +11.3
DMC/Ben: +8.6
DMC/Casspi: +8

 

[funkykingston]

I would love to see Cousins surrounded with shooters it should be extremely hard to defend, on the defensive side I think people are a little overestimating how much we need WCS with him.

Cousins is actually a very good defensive center and rim-protector and our main problem comes from our non-existent perimeter defense.
WCS no doubt has value as an help defender and in a better scheme his abilities might have more impact on our defense (especially against the pick&roll as you mentioned), but I think that with better perimeter defenders we can have an average-to-good defense around Cousins with a great offense to go with it.

I do think in certain situations there will be need of both of them on the floor and WCS abillity to hit jumpers is encouraging but I guess I would just like to give the stretch 4 a chance.

During the five game win streak WCS/DMC were +5.2, which sounds really good until you mention that DMC/Belinelli had the same result , both tied as 5th best Cousins-featuring duo after:
DMC/Rondo: +14.6
DMC/Gay: +11.3
DMC/Ben: +8.6
DMC/Casspi: +8

From my perspective, the Kings should go after Ryan Anderson. Period. That may mean not resigning Rondo or it could mean dealing players (Gay? Koufos? Marco?) and taking back much less salary to open up cap room. But if you get a three man rotation of DMC, WCS & RA then I don't think it would take long to figure out which duo should start and also which duo should finish.

Obviously I think Cauley-Stein is a good front court mate for Cousins but you always go with what benefits the team most and what the on court results show.

Another thing I like about Cauley-Stein (and that might give him the nod in such a scenario) is his ability to get out in transition. Cousins snags a board, outlets to a guard and you try and get a quick basket from having WCS as a guy who can change ends quickly and finish in the open court. If that look isn't there they you regroup and start your secondary offense when Cousins gets down the floor.

I just see Willie as a great defensive weapon who I think will open some eyes with his offensive improvement over the summer. Then again, I should've learned by now not to ever get too optimistic as a Kings fan.

 

[hrdboild]

From my perspective, the Kings should go after Ryan Anderson. Period. That may mean not resigning Rondo or it could mean dealing players (Gay? Koufos? Marco?) and taking back much less salary to open up cap room. But if you get a three man rotation of DMC, WCS & RA then I don't think it would take long to figure out which duo should start and also which duo should finish.

Obviously I think Cauley-Stein is a good front court mate for Cousins but you always go with what benefits the team most and what the on court results show. Another thing I like about Cauley-Stein is his ability to get out in transition. Cousins snags a board, outlets to a guard and you try and get a quick basket from having WCS as a guy who can change ends quickly and finish in the open court. If that look isn't there they you regroup and start your secondary offense when Cousins gets down the floor.

I just see Willie as a great defensive weapon who I think will open some eyes with his offensive improvement over the summer. Then again, I should've learned by now not to ever get too optimistic as a Kings fan.

I have to say, I'm leaning pass on Ryan Anderson at this point. You know he's going to be in high demand in today's 3pt obsessed league which means he'll be expensive. Probably 17 to 20 million a year. The last two seasons he's been 34% and 36% behind the arc. That's not game changing. We already have better options than that on the team this year. I suppose if you're married to the idea of a PF who can shoot he's the best option out there, but I don't see how that changes our outlook much unless he's also a difference maker on defense. We could continue to play Rudy or Omri at PF next year and get the same shooting ability and mediocre defense we'd have with Ryan Anderson then use that cap space to sign a defender.

 

[Glenn]

I have to say, I'm leaning pass on Ryan Anderson at this point. You know he's going to be in high demand in today's 3pt obsessed league which means he'll be expensive. Probably 17 to 20 million a year. The last two seasons he's been 34% and 36% behind the arc. That's not game changing. We already have better options than that on the team this year. I suppose if you're married to the idea of a PF who can shoot he's the best option out there, but I don't see how that changes our outlook much unless he's also a difference maker on defense. We could continue to play Rudy or Omri at PF next year and get the same shooting ability and mediocre defense we'd have with Ryan Anderson then use that cap space to sign a defender.

Whether he hits the shots or not, he requires someone to guard him because he is good enough.

 

[hrdboild]

I would love to see Cousins surrounded with shooters it should be extremely hard to defend, on the defensive side I think people are a little overestimating how much we need WCS with him.

Cousins is actually a very good defensive center and rim-protector and our main problem comes from our non-existent perimeter defense.
WCS no doubt has value as an help defender and in a better scheme his abilities might have more impact on our defense (especially against the pick&roll as you mentioned), but I think that with better perimeter defenders we can have an average-to-good defense around Cousins with a great offense to go with it.

I do think in certain situations there will be need of both of them on the floor and WCS abillity to hit jumpers is encouraging but I guess I would just like to give the stretch 4 a chance.

During the five game win streak WCS/DMC were +5.2, which sounds really good until you mention that DMC/Belinelli had the same result , both tied as 5th best Cousins-featuring duo after:
DMC/Rondo: +14.6
DMC/Gay: +11.3
DMC/Ben: +8.6
DMC/Casspi: +8

Now that you mention it, if we're not blowing this team up -- if we're trying to retool with a new coaching philosophy, use our cap space and draft pick to raise our talent level -- then those are the only players I would look to bring back next year. DeMarcus, Rajon, Ben, Rudy, Omri, and Willie. Basically our best starting 5 (though they probably won't all be starters next year) plus Omri. When we've played well this year that was the core group. Seth and Quincy can come back too cause they're cheap. And if that's who's coming back then it clears up what we're looking for: a more talented SG to push Ben to the bench, an upgraded third big who can lock down the rest of the front-court minutes and play well with both Boogie and WCS, and a lockdown perimeter defender to bring off the bench as needed. I'm still straddling the fence on how much rebuilding is really necessary here. I can see the logic in cutting everyone but DeMarcus and trying to put together a different kind of team around him. I can also see the logic in keeping the talent we currently have, eliminating redundant parts, adding two or three nice pieces that compliment the core better, then getting them a coach who knows how to use them. I'm fine with either strategy as long as the commitment is 100%.

 

[hrdboild]

Whether he hits the shots or not, he requires someone to guard him because he is good enough.

People keep saying this but I'll agree to disagree on this one. I think NBA teams are too smart and sophisticated at this point in time to continue pursuing a flawed defensive strategy which doesn't align with the data*. If we've got numbers which tell us Rondo is an effective 3pt shooter in the corners (he's shooting .439 this season on corner threes), so do NBA teams. If we've got data that says Ryan Anderson is not an elite shooter but a competent one (.376 career 3pt %), so do NBA teams. He's no more or less dangerous than any other 37% shooter. If you move the ball effectively you're going to create open shots. At that point the only thing that matters is whether the player can knock the shot down or not. Reputation doesn't really factor into it.

*I suppose I should make this "most NBA teams" for obvious reasons...

 

[Flopi]

People keep saying this but I'll agree to disagree on this one. I think NBA teams are too smart and sophisticated at this point in time to continue pursuing a flawed defensive strategy which doesn't align with the data*. If we've got numbers which tell us Rondo is an effective 3pt shooter in the corners (he's shooting .439 this season on corner threes), so do NBA teams. If we've got data that says Ryan Anderson is not an elite shooter but a competent one (.376 career 3pt %), so do NBA teams. He's no more or less dangerous than any other 37% shooter. If you move the ball effectively you're going to create open shots. At that point the only thing that matters is whether the player can knock the shot down or not. Reputation doesn't really factor into it.

Excuse me but that is a very poor statistics interpretation.
Shooting percentage is far from being the only stat to consider in order to judge shooting abilities. Difficulty of shoots matters. A lot.
Do you think that Steve Kerr is a better shooter than Steph Curry because he has a better career 3PT% ? Of course not. Kerr made a career as a role player taking wide open threes while Curry takes dozen of ridiculous shots per game.
Ryan Anderson has .377 career 3PT%, taking 7.4 threes per 36 minutes. A large portion of them are difficult shots. His percentage would be WAY up if he took only wide open shots à la Matt Bonner.

 

[hrdboild]

Excuse me but that is a very poor statistics interpretation.
Shooting percentage is far from being the only stat to consider in order to judge shooting abilities. Difficulty of shoots matters. A lot.
Do you think that Steve Kerr is a better shooter than Steph Curry because he has a better career 3PT% ? Of course not. Kerr made a career as a role player taking wide open threes while Curry takes dozen of ridiculous shots per game.
Ryan Anderson has .377 career 3PT%, taking 7.4 threes per 36 minutes. A large portion of them are difficult shots. His percentage would be WAY up if he took only wide open shots à la Matt Bonner.

You're not the only person saying this, but it defies common sense. If one player is shooting 38% and one player is shooting 35% you're going to tell me the player shooting 35% is a better shooter because he's taking more shots or because he's taking tougher shots? It should be the exact opposite. A player who shoots a lower percentage and fires up even more shots is only exaggerating the difference. Taking quick shots or off-balance shots with a hand in their face is probably the reason their percentage is lower. Is that supposed to make me feel better about the misses? Steph Curry isn't a great shooter because he takes off-balance jumpers from 4 feet behind the line, he's a great shooter because he's making 46%. If he took those same shots and shot only 37% he'd be effective but out of control. If he took those same shots and made 30% he'd be a chucker. The result is what matters. You're trying to tell me that I'm mis-interpreting the stats but then you want to artificially inflate Ryan Anderson's shooting percentage because you know that he would shoot a higher percentage if we were left unguarded? That's craziness.

I know the opinion you're expressing is probably the majority opinion -- but this opinion needs to change. If you take a ton of highly contested jumpers and make a few miracle shots a game you're, colloquially speaking, a great shooter (Kobe Bryant). Let's take the qualitative aspect out of it and just look at the data. If I tell you there's a player who's taken 5440 3pt shots in their career and made 33% of them, are you going to tell me the player I'm describing is a great shooter? I think you're going to tell me that the player I'm describing probably led the league in scoring a couple times but they're a volume shooter not a great one and they may have an ego problem.

 

[Bricklayer]

You're not the only person saying this, but it defies common sense. If one player is shooting 38% and one player is shooting 35% you're going to tell me the player shooting 35% is a better shooter because he's taking more shots or because he's taking tougher shots?

I don't know if it fully applies to threes, but that's normally the relationship. The more shots you take, the higher the marginal degree of difficulty, and probably especially when you are a known weapon and therefore drawing attention.

Everybody gets a few easy layups and dunks. Then guys with a little offensive skill might get a handful of real shots, in the right situation, on a switch, a little jumper off the catch etc. But the opposing team doesn't especially defend them hard. Then you begin to get to your primary weapons, creating shots on their own. Those are a little lower percentage yet. And then finally you get to your star(s) continuing to create for themselves and others, often against double teams, traps etc. and defense geared to stop them.

Everybody can hit the layups and dunks, but if you take a scrub and start asking him to take each level of more difficult shots, the percentages begin to plummet. Its why a star shooting 45% and a guy taking 4 shots a game shooting 45% are miles apart in talent. On 4 shots a game, that star shoots 90%. And on 15 shots a game, that scrub shoots 34%.

Its hard to say how that plays out with a three point shooter, but Ryan Anderson isn't just getting 1 or 2 easy open corner threes a game. He's being asked to be a primary weapon with it, take them from all around the court, defenses know about him and so rarely leave him open the way they might a scrubby player, and in general the looks he gets from three are much more difficult than the looks Ben might get for instance. All the attention he draws should also have beneficial effects on the rest of your team.

Put another way, not many players could shoot as well as Anderson does given the number and type of shots he shoots. If teams would just leave him wide open, like we often do, he'd be a 40%+ shooter from out there.

 

[hrdboild]

I don't know if it fully applies to threes, but that's normally the relationship. The more shots you take, the higher the marginal degree of difficulty, and probably especially when you are a known weapon and therefore drawing attention.

Everybody gets a few easy layups and dunks. Then guys with a little offensive skill might get a handful of real shots, in the right situation, on a switch, a little jumper off the catch etc. But the opposing team doesn't especially defend them hard. Then you begin to get to your primary weapons, creating shots on their own. Those are a little lower percentage yet. And then finally you get to your star(s) continuing to create for themselves and others, often against double teams, traps etc. and defense geared to stop them.

Everybody can hit the layups and dunks, but if you take a scrub and start asking him to take each level of more difficult shots, the percentages begin to plummet. Its why a star shooting 45% and a guy taking 4 shots a game shooting 45% are miles apart in talent. On 4 shots a game, that star shoots 90%. And on 15 shots a game, that scrub shoots 34%.

Its hard to say how that plays out with a three point shooter, but Ryan Anderson isn't just getting 1 or 2 easy open corner threes a game. He's being asked to be a primary weapon with it, take them from all around the court, defenses know about him and so rarely leave him open the way they might a scrubby player, and in general the looks he gets from three are much more difficult than the looks Ben might get for instance. All the attention he draws should also have beneficial effects on the rest of your team.

Put another way, not many players could shoot as well as Anderson does given the number and type of shots he shoots. If teams would just leave him wide open, like we often do, he'd be a 40%+ shooter from out there.

Couldn't you say all of this about Marco Belinelli too? He's a known shooter who's been asked to carry the offense at times and take his shots from all over the court often with a defender nearby. I don't see how all the "attention" he's attracting from opposing defenses is helping us this season. I'm not trying to compare Quincy Acy's 40% shooting on 20 shots to a guy like Ryan Anderson. That would be an abuse of statistics. I'm saying if the defense wants to leave Rondo wide open in the corner and he's making 43% of his threes from out there GOOD! That's easy points for us. If they're leaving him wide open and he's only making 28% that would be a problem but if the shot goes in, I hope they don't guard him.

The implication is that it's somehow tougher for DeMarcus Cousins to score in the paint because the opposing PG is sagging off Rondo when he's out at the three point line and that's why we need a feared shooter to take his place -- someone who will force the defense to spread out more and leave open space in the paint. To me this is the kind of lie which is spoken so often that it starts to feel like truth. If we give Cousins the ball in the post and the defense sucks in that leaves other players wide open. If those players are capable of hitting wide open shots then you pass it out to them. What's not to like? Does it really have to be Ryan Anderson out there for that play to be effective? If you already have a player who can draw double-teams in the post than the "scrubby" guys you're describing just have to be able to make enough wide-open shots for the defense to start second-guessing themselves. And at that point I don't care about putting an elite shooter on the floor who demands attention -- I just want a player out there who gets results and that's 100% about shooting percentage not any perceived shooting intangibles.

I'm not talking about star players here, that's a whole other discussion. And maybe that's where the confusion comes from -- a false analogy which equates superstars carrying the team by demanding double-teams with elite shooters forcing the defense to get in their face and ... guard them one on one? The only time I've ever seen a team consistently double-team an elite shooter at the three point line is Steph Curry at Davidson. At best an elite shooter is taking one defender out of the play by standing way outside as a decoy. Is that giving you a big enough advantage that you want to go out and spend star player money on a stretch 4 who's not going to grab offensive rebounds out there and is really only elite at one thing? This obsession with putting elite shooters at every position so DeMarcus can roam the floor like Godzilla in downtown Tokyo sounds more like basketball fantasy to me than reality. He's still going to get double-teamed which means your elite shooter is now being asked to make the same kinds of shots Seth Curry is capable of making only at 10x the price.

 

[Bricklayer]

Couldn't you say all of this about Marco Belinelli too? He's a known shooter who's been asked to carry the offense at times and take his shots from all over the court often with a defender nearby. I don't see how all the "attention" he's attracting from opposing defenses is helping us this season. I'm not trying to compare Quincy Acy's 40% shooting on 20 shots to a guy like Ryan Anderson. That would be an abuse of statistics. I'm saying if the defense wants to leave Rondo wide open in the corner and he's making 43% of his threes from out there GOOD! That's easy points for us. If they're leaving him wide open and he's only making 28% that would be a problem but if the shot goes in, I hope they don't guard him.

The implication is that it's somehow tougher for DeMarcus Cousins to score in the paint because the opposing PG is sagging off Rondo when he's out at the three point line and that's why we need a feared shooter to take his place -- someone who will force the defense to spread out more and leave open space in the paint. To me this is the kind of lie which is spoken so often that it starts to feel like truth. If we give Cousins the ball in the post and the defense sucks in that leaves other players wide open. If those players are capable of hitting wide open shots then you pass it out to them. What's not to like? Does it really have to be Ryan Anderson out there for that play to be effective? If you already have a player who can draw double-teams in the post than the "scrubby" guys you're describing just have to be able to make enough wide-open shots for the defense to start second-guessing themselves. And at that point I don't care about putting an elite shooter on the floor who demands attention -- I just want a player out there who gets results and that's 100% about shooting percentage not any perceived shooting intangibles.

I'm not talking about star players here, that's a whole other discussion. And maybe that's where the confusion comes from -- a false analogy which equates superstars carrying the team by demanding double-teams with elite shooters forcing the defense to get in their face and ... guard them one on one? The only time I've ever seen a team consistently double-team an elite shooter at the three point line is Steph Curry at Davidson. At best an elite shooter is taking one defender out of the play by standing way outside as a decoy. Is that giving you a big enough advantage that you want to go out and spend star player money on a stretch 4 who's not going to grab offensive rebounds out there and is really only elite at one thing? This obsession with putting elite shooters at every position so DeMarcus can roam the floor like Godzilla in downtown Tokyo sounds more like basketball fantasy to me than reality. He's still going to get double-teamed which means your elite shooter is now being asked to make the same kinds of shots Seth Curry is capable of making only at 10x the price.

I think if anything what Marco has shown is the gap in talent between he and a Ryan Anderson. Marco can be quite efficient on lower usage numbers, but he's never shown he can carry around a mid-20s usage right like Anderson can while still putting up respectable numbers.

 

[hrdboild]

I think if anything what Marco has shown is the gap in talent between he and a Ryan Anderson. Marco can be quite efficient on lower usage numbers, but he's never shown he can carry around a mid-20s usage right like Anderson can while still putting up respectable numbers.

You're saying this with the benefit of hindsight but I don't even think it holds up with the data. Marco had a usage rate of 19 when he averaged 43% with San Antonio 2 years ago and this year it's 19.8 and 31%. Ryan Anderson has a career usage rate of 22.5 and a career 3pt % of .377 while Marco Belinelli has a career usage rate of 19.4 and a career 3pt % of .381. Even after throwing up 192 bricks this season, Marco still has a higher career 3pt % than Ryan Anderson and his usage rate isn't that far off.

All this season shows to me is that there are no sure things in basketball and an 8 year veteran who's never had a bad season from behind the arc before can still fire blanks for a whole season. Also, a better coach probably would have rained him in 2 months ago instead of allowing him to keep firing with impunity like the Italian Monta Ellis.

 

[The_Jamal]

I have to say, I'm leaning pass on Ryan Anderson at this point. You know he's going to be in high demand in today's 3pt obsessed league which means he'll be expensive. Probably 17 to 20 million a year. The last two seasons he's been 34% and 36% behind the arc. That's not game changing. We already have better options than that on the team this year. I suppose if you're married to the idea of a PF who can shoot he's the best option out there, but I don't see how that changes our outlook much unless he's also a difference maker on defense. We could continue to play Rudy or Omri at PF next year and get the same shooting ability and mediocre defense we'd have with Ryan Anderson then use that cap space to sign a defender.

ugh,

USG rate matters my friend. It's something you don't get with the whole Rondo/IT debate we were having in the other thread. Ryan Anderson is one of the biggest 3pt chuckers in the game, which obviously is going to keep his percentages somewhat muted. That's a good thing because defenses HAVE to stay out on him, or they know he'll be launching. It creates a big question for the defense; do you pack the paint against Cousins and let Anderson get good looks, or do you try and play Cousins straight up? Either scenario, we win.

With Ryan Anderson in the game with Cousins, you're taking a big out of the post that Cuz has to get through. It's why I've been advocating for him since he signed with the Pelicans 4 years ago. He's the type of player that makes life easy for Cousins on the offensive end; something we've been avoiding for a long time

 

[funkykingston]

Cousins, Cauley-Stein and Anderson would be an almost ideal big rotation.

Anderson would be even better for Cousins than he has been for Davis. I like AD a lot but he's not the same offensive force Cousins is and he isn't nearly the same kind of threat in the post.

Signing Anderson would push KK down the depth chart or make him trade bait but I'm okay with that.

I understand the thinking behind signing Koufos, I even liked the move at the time. He is a better interior defender than JT, knows his role and does his job willingly and would allow Cuz to play some PF.

But they aren't a great tandem offensively (Cousins really needs more space to operate, not a big who is only effective near the basket forcing DeMarcus further out) and defensively it means Cousins checking mobile PFs, stretch 4's etc.

So while I like Kosta, as long as Cousins is a King, Koufos is really only suited to be a 12 mpg backup center and occasional starter when Boogie is out. Even with the new salary cap that makes him somewhat overpaid.

As I've said, unless this team is blowing things up completely and dealing Cousins I think you definitely keep DMC, WCS, Casspi and consider trading anyone else under contract if it improves the team. If Curry picks up his option then great, I'd love him back. Rondo? Not unless he can (and will) play a hell of a lot better defense for the next coach. And even then I wouldn't overpay. He's had a bounce back year statistically but I still think the market for him will be relatively soft despite all the newfound caproom.

 

[hrdboild]

ugh,

USG rate matters my friend. It's something you don't get with the whole Rondo/IT debate we were having in the other thread. Ryan Anderson is one of the biggest 3pt chuckers in the game, which obviously is going to keep his percentages somewhat muted. That's a good thing because defenses HAVE to stay out on him, or they know he'll be launching. It creates a big question for the defense; do you pack the paint against Cousins and let Anderson get good looks, or do you try and play Cousins straight up? Either scenario, we win.

With Ryan Anderson in the game with Cousins, you're taking a big out of the post that Cuz has to get through. It's why I've been advocating for him since he signed with the Pelicans 4 years ago. He's the type of player that makes life easy for Cousins on the offensive end; something we've been avoiding for a long time

Oh I get it. I'm not dismissing usage rate completely, I explained exactly why I don't think it matters in this context 2 posts up. The post you quoted was in response to Brick's contention that Belinelli failed this year because the higher usage rate exposed him. His career usage rate is 19.4. This season he's at 19.8. His career 3pt% is .388 and this season he's shot .312. I don't see how usage rate was a factor at all for Belinelli this season. Let's keep the big picture in mind here. The discussion was about signing Ryan Anderson. I don't think we need a dedicated shooter at PF as much as we need an all-around player who contributes across the board in a lot of areas and I don't think Ryan Anderson is worth the price he will command in free agency. A PF who hits 40% from three might be but a PF who hits 37%, grabs rebounds at the same rate as Rudy Gay, and doesn't have a big impact defensively might not be. From there we got into the idea that Ryan Anderson's 37% is somehow better than another player's 37% because he shoots more and that's where I throw up my hands and call shenanigans.

Apparently you fall into this same trap:

"Ryan Anderson is one of the biggest 3pt chuckers in the game, which obviously is going to keep his percentages somewhat muted."

This isn't obvious to me at all. Why should shooting more keep his percentages muted? Steph Curry shoots more than any other player in the league, are his percentages muted too? I hear the argument -- feared shooters are taking tougher shots, maybe taking shots as the clock is winding down, maybe taking more high pressure end game shots. Bullcrap. It goes in or it doesn't go in. This is why stats exist in the first place to separate reality from fiction. Maybe Ryan Anderson shoots 37% because he's a 37% shooter. Not maybe in fact, it's there in black and white. There are nearly 2600 shots which tell us he's a 37% shooter. What do we get with Ryan Anderson at PF that we don't get with Rudy Gay or Omri Casspi at PF? Don't defenders have to guard them out there too?

This is what I'm getting at: what do we really need from our third big? Shooting would be nice but I don't think it goes to the top of the list. I think we want a mobile big who's got some ball skills -- at the very least I want them to be able to pass the ball intelligently and shoot a mid-range jumper. Ideally they can hold their own defensively in the post and get to the right spots to defend pick and rolls. They don't need to be a big-time shot-blocker, but I don't want them in there if they're not at least challenging shots near the basket. And I want them to finish off possessions by boxing out and securing defensive rebounds which has become a real problem for us this season. If I look at all that, I don't put Ryan Anderson at the top of my list. Would he space the floor for us? Sure. Do we need that? Not really. Certainly not enough to make him our big free agent signing of the summer.

Also, the Rondo/IT thing is a whole other issue. IT was a bad fit for us because we already have two high usage players in our starting lineup and adding IT to the mix was reducing everyone's efficiency. Rondo is a better fit than IT for this roster precisely because he has a lower usage rate. He doesn't eat up shots, he creates shots for other players. You're obviously very exasperated by this issue if you're bringing it back (months later?) in an unrelated topic. Imagine how I feel! It appears to me that you're not even comprehending what my argument is.