Who Gets the Minutes?

[upinsmoke]

I disagree, I think Hawes could develope into a nice fit for the kings but Theus could not sacrifice rebounding. So miller got the time not hawes.

 

[fnordius]

I disagree, I think Hawes could develope into a nice fit for the kings but Theus could not sacrifice rebounding. So miller got the time not hawes.

Hmmm... I don't find that the least bit consistent with these numbers.

Rebounds per 40 minutes and minutes played, 2007-8

Justin Williams: 16.1, 115.8
Brad Miller: 10.8, 2,512.8
Shelden Williams: 10.8, 361.2
Spencer Hawes: 9.9, 928.0
Mikki Moore: 8.3, 2,386.2

Besides, isn't it expected that developing your younger players might cause a stat or two to drop temporarily? It's not as if Hawes will become a better rebounder by waving a towel all year, and if playing youngsters meant a 35 win season instead of 38... so what?

 

[Emma]

Rebounds per 40 minutes and minutes played, 2007-8

Justin Williams: 16.1, 115.8
Brad Miller: 10.8, 2,512.8
Shelden Williams: 10.8, 361.2
Spencer Hawes: 9.9, 928.0
Mikki Moore: 8.3, 2,386.2

Rebounds per 40 is the most ridiculous statistic ever invented. The longer you're in the game the more you get beat up, it becomes harder to chase after a loose ball. There should be a rate of decline built into that equation.

 

[fnordius]

Rebounds per 40 is the most ridiculous statistic ever invented. The longer you're in the game the more you get beat up, it becomes harder to chase after a loose ball. There should be a rate of decline built into that equation.

Because KF doesn't go for linking to blogs, if you want to find the research behind this, you're going to have to use Google. However, the idea that increased minutes = decreased production per minute was debunked last year, when people started questioning the value of PER due to its dependence on per-minute stats. Three or four different studies of the subject, looking at large samplings of players, had findings like: increased minutes will result in increased production per minute 70% of the time, decreased production per minute 28% of the time, and level production per minute 2% of the time.

So it depends on the player and the circumstances, but about 70% of the time, more minutes will = higher per minute stats, not the other way around.

 

[Bricklayer]

Rebounds per 40 is the most ridiculous statistic ever invented. The longer you're in the game the more you get beat up, it becomes harder to chase after a loose ball. There should be a rate of decline built into that equation.

Really doesn't work that way. That claim is made, but the stats don't back it up. I suspect whatever drop off in energy is involved is countered by getting into a rhythm. And because of the focus on offensive ability, there are at least as many good rebounders coming off the bench as in the starting lineup -- hence grabbing boards off the bench against benchers is no easier than grabbing boards as a starter.

P.S. As an aside, you should really use rebounds/48 in the NBA. Rebounds/40 is the college norm...because they play 40 minutes. In the NBA per 48 is the norm because they play 48. The idea being that you never have to adjust backward (some guys do play mor ehtna 40). It could of course be any number oif minutes -- the key is the comparative rate. Just normally has been adjusted to whatever the maximum regulation minutes have been in a particular league. As an extra aside -- NBA.com amuses me by listing "RP40" stats on the right side...but when you do the math they are actually RP48 stats. Whoever changed the title forgot to tell the stats guys, or just did not know what league he was workign for.

 

[Emma]

Because KF doesn't go for linking to blogs, if you want to find the research behind this, you're going to have to use Google. However, the idea that increased minutes = decreased production per minute was debunked last year, when people started questioning the value of PER due to its dependence on per-minute stats. Three or four different studies of the subject, looking at large samplings of players, had findings like: increased minutes will result in increased production per minute 70% of the time, decreased production per minute 28% of the time, and level production per minute 2% of the time.

So it depends on the player and the circumstances, but about 70% of the time, more minutes will = higher per minute stats, not the other way around.

That defies logic and the law of diminishing returns. But I will look it up.

Just take these things with a grain of salt is all I'm saying.

 

[bajaden]

I disagree, I think Hawes could develope into a nice fit for the kings but Theus could not sacrifice rebounding. So miller got the time not hawes.

As an outsider looking in, I'm a little confused by your posts. In one it appeared that you were defending Reggie, by saying he played Hawes enough, and in the other Post it appeared that you were defending Reggie for not playing Hawes enough. Maybe I'm misreading it..

 

[bajaden]

That defies logic and the law of diminishing returns. But I will look it up.

Just take these things with a grain of salt is all I'm saying.

I have to go with Fnordius and Bricky on this one. I'm afraid they're right...

 

[upinsmoke]

As an outsider looking in, I'm a little confused by your posts. In one it appeared that you were defending Reggie, by saying he played Hawes enough, and in the other Post it appeared that you were defending Reggie for not playing Hawes enough. Maybe I'm misreading it..

What im saying is I feel Reggie played Spencer the correct amount of mins and gave my reasoning for it. (rebounding)
Sorry if I was not clear enough I was posting late last night.

And to ANYONE who thinks your production cant fall off after playing long minutes you must not play the game much. No matter how fit you are you get tired and those last few buckets and boards really test you.

 

[CruzDude]

I kinda take issue with a bunch of you. Rebuilding is a tough word with way too many meanings to many of us. The Kings apparently now have the two BIGS they needed, I said apparently but we'll see, and big hopes of keeping Beno (who knows how much they really know about that nor how far along they may really be in getting him?).

They look like they got a new, good backup PG in Singletary, and a defensive spark plug off the bench (PE 2nd). Moving either RonRon or Brad is first order with RonRon (a much higher value) on the front burner as he can yield higher quality parts in return and we have Salmons who can move into the 3 spot without loosing a beat. We assume KT and SAR have no role this year.

That leaves the Brad/Hawes and Mikki/Thompson/Shelden situations plus backups for scoring SG. Cisco is #6 but perhaps PE 2nd is the defender who can score a few that comes off the bench with Cisco as the need arises.

So rather than "rebuilding" from here I'd prefer to borrow a term from a buddy and say the Kings are "retooling" with pieces they now have and a few new pieces yet to come. I think we see a very strong if not powerful Kings summer league team along with 2 or 3 others doing similar upgrading as well.

By the end of next week we have one info reference point (free agent activity) followed by the 10th when free agents can be signed followed by the 20th when the Vegas Summer League is over and we have seen what the rookies have rought. Potential Summer League starters could be: Hawes at the 5, Shelden/Thompson at the 4, PE 2nd at the 3, a hot shooting free agent at the 2 and Singletary at the PG.

There are some interesting, experienced and muscled FA's out there: Mo Evans and Matt Barnes, both ex-Kings to mention two.

 

[upinsmoke]

If ron walks signing Barnes should be looked at because he is out to prove his worth.