Let’s be clear – I love Blake Griffin. He’s a monster, he’s a hometown boy and he’s everything this team needs. And I’d do anything to get him on my team.
Except trade Jeff Green.
Eddie Sefko wrote in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram today that there is that possibility.
There will be no shortage of competition, however, particularly from Oklahoma City, which has the third pick in the draft. The Thunder is expected to make a play for Griffin, using the third pick and one of their young core players (Jeff Green or Russell Westbrook) as bait for the top overall pick, which would allow them to keep Griffin in his hometown. That would be a huge move in terms of local interest and, by extension, ticket sales.
Again, I’d love Blake. But not at the expense of Jeff Green. I’ve made my decision there. A lot of people are going to throw that possibility out there, but I’m not in on it. And I’m sure a lot of people would gladly trade Uncle Jeff for Blake, but not me.
Green fits perfectly with Kevin Durant and you can’t replace the chemistry him, KD and Russell Westbrook have built. Plus, Green made a huge leap from his rookie to sophomore season. He’s a completely different player – in a much, much better way. I feel like you’re forcing the issue at some point trying to get Blake. You may be doing what’s in the best interest for the fanbase but are you doing what’s best for the team? Now of course I’d be thrilled if something happened that landed The Terminator here, but I’m not holding my breath. Because there’s not much chance anything is going to happen anyway.
While those type of trade talks are ambitious and exciting, the one Chad Ford hinted at today is an excellent proposal. Excellent.
Look for the Thunder to be pretty active in trade discussions with the No. 3 pick. They like Rubio, but if they draft him, they’d have to move Russell Westbrook to the 2-guard position. I talked to Thunder head coach Scott Brooks on Tuesday and he said that he believes Westbrook can play the 2, but that Westbrook wants to be a 1.
I think the challenge is that Westbrook is most effective when he has the ball in his hands and struggles more when forced to play off the ball. With Rubio and Kevin Durant likely to have the ball a lot in that offense, Westbrook would have to make an adjustment. When you factor in that neither Rubio nor Westbrook is an accomplished shooter yet, there is an issue.
That’s why a couple of teams think the Thunder might be willing to trade down in the draft. Two league sources said the Wizards and Thunder already had discussions about a swap of the No. 3 pick for the No. 5 pick and the Wizards’ 2008 first-rounder JaVale McGee.
The Wizards want Rubio and would settle for Thabeet if he’s the one who falls. The Thunder would get a long, lanky shot-blocker in McGee and can then get another guy they like, Arizona State’s James Harden, at No. 5.
Before we move on, just take a look at JaVale McGee’s mix. He is an unreal athlete and is 7-foot, 240 lbs. This is the type of Presti move that makes sense. You improve the position that you’d cover by drafting Thabeet by getting an athletic shot blocker, but still improve another position with Harden. That’s a seriously excellent move.
When stuff leaks out like this, it seems to rarely happen, but I think this could be the type of thing we see Presti do. He’ll shop the pick for someone that desperately wants Thabeet or Rubio and use that to fill a need and still land a guy he wants. Let me just say, I would absolutely love this move, especially if Memphis takes Rubio at two. You get the guy you want at five, plus pick up another excellent talent. I’m on board.
and please get some nicer looking uniforms those things are awful.
+/- duh.We got 2 first rd picks and 3 seconds.Draft the guys you want and or need .Put 5 starters on the floor set a substition pattern possibly altering a little for matchups get rid of the worst players,ask your best players to play their butts off.Roll out a basketball and play.
There is actually another method I identified to modify classical adjusted without having to introduce new assumptions or information to improve the fit of adjusted scores across all players on each team by an iterative adjusted process using the classical adjusted scores of opponents but re-finding the adjusted scores of a specific team's players to better match there actual win performance. I'd use that too- separately or in conjunction with my partial subjective adjusted on the ball scoring alternate. I think it could be better than the player scores yielded by the classical adjusted process that is intended to create the best fit league-wide but not necessarily the best possible fit for individual teams. But that is probably enough now.
I probably said too much about adjusted here, but since I did, and since I need to say more to explain what I said better, I'll say more.
The alternate method I describe is in fact a form of subjective adjusted and I can understand why the authors of classical adjusted do not see it as adjusted or reject it as adjusted.
But the way to potentially reconcile this is to look at classical adjusted, my alternate method and a hybrid of the two whereby only the partial credit/blame for the direct on the ball final actions are scored my method and the rest is scored by classical adjusted. Then you look at the 3 scores by these methods and blend them or perhaps state the player's value as a range of the 3. Sometimes they will be close, sometimes they may vary a lot. Different folks can come with their own final answer based on the range of these and any of the 10 other popular fairly inclusive boxscore- based player metrics.
That is what I should have said earlier. Here and elsewhere.
For what it is worth possibly to anybody. Or at least to me.
thanks for not needing an apology though my response to "see my point?" wasn't the right pitch and I was probably too detailed in response to the specifics of the Wizard example. it just happens. oh well.
later.
Yeah I have tried to swear off doing so
but totally cured yet
@Crow
Haha, no apologies needed. Was a good head hurting. Especially since there are people getting paid 6 figures to contemplate this exact kind of stuff for teams around the league.
We shouldn't be discussing this for free...:)
sorry
I dipped back into this one more time but I don't want to make people's heads hurt
JG I proposed here earlier here on a ramble giving the scorer about 48-60% of the credit as input for the adjusted method depending on whether the play was assisted (with 12% to the assister and the rest equally to al four of the non-scorers for spreading the court, passing, screens and evertyhing that happens) and I think I said 40-50% credit or blame for the guy covering the guy who took the shot and the rest of the credit divided among the other 4 defenders. I mentioned it here and to a prominent GM but I guess until I actually run the data and push it it is just a concept that might be better than classical adjusted.
My head hurts now.
should be in second post up
and "not" by any determination of or assigned credit based on what role or part he played in the relative performance of the team
I've probably gone on too long, again
but regards. the issue has two sides.
@Crow
McGee played with Jamison, Butler and Young 1/3 of his total time on the court, which means he spend 2/3 of his time with everyone else...that was kind of my point. The majority of his time was spent playing with the Wizards' worst players.
And I couldn't agree with you more about the big flaw of adjusted...but I don't know how you could tweak it either to make it more...um, accurately adjusted?
A hybrid statistical / adjusted method would give Durant more of the credit on offense. And he probably deserves more. But a hybrid system of team defensive stats along with counterpart stats would probably make him look even worse on defense. The true number may never be approached close and reliably enough to gain everyone's satisfaction. But you can get moderately good estimates and they may be useful to some. To me better to check and add to the rest of the information you have than not.
So while we agree that classical adjusted is not as good as it is sometimes portrayed- and you were right to mention that and I have here in the past but didn't this time- I still think it has some value especially for many of those who are far from zero on adjusted, good or bad. People believe what adjusted says about LeBron. Paul, Duncan, etc. Some believe what it says about Durant so far, some don't. Let's see what it says next season.
"a player’s share of the adjusted +/- for his team’s positive success in the stat is adjusted..."
but only by the change of the scoreboard while he is on the court
and by any determination of or assigned credit based on what role or part he played in the relative performance of the team
that is actually a big flaw of adjusted that I have hammered on without the classical authors of adjusted willingness to change or even engage in discussion
the scorer gets the same credit and the guy standing in the corner when the shot goes in - or not- and only by the crunching of a large amount of play by play does it try to tease out who deserves credit. The number of plays for starters is enough to do a pretty good job of assigning adjusted scores to about 2/3rds of the players. I think an "adjusted" adjusted could do better but haven't spent the time to learn and revise the mechanics of the method- at least yet.
Actually totalling it up McGee played with Jamison, Butler and Young about one third of the total time that threesome played or close to 180 minutes and most of that time the scoreboard and the adjusted for the lineup was terrible. He played with 3 or more of the 5 guys you mentioned for over 350 minutes or about 1/3 of his total time. A small sample to be sure but a decent share of the total. But rookies often have poor +/- and tend to improve.
"see my point?"
Nope. We are going to have to agree to disagree.
I believe that Westbrook and Weaver are "likely" among the best teammates when you consider everything on both sides of the ball. Mason probably was too and I wouldn't have guess it without adjusted information.
Thabo's adjusted is affected by his time in Chicago and just in OKC he was positive- but not with Durant the guy he was slated to play with. He and Durant are each other worst pairs by raw +/-.
Sene and Hill are so small sample they are not good examples of anything but the vagaries of extremely small sample sizes.
Durant's adjusted is only a rough estimate of his total impact on both sides of the ball but there is only about a 2.5% probability that there is so much error that he was actually positive. And the fact that in 2 years he has had just one positive player pair on raw +/- in 32 tries (and with Rose in a too small to really count anything 35 minutes) adds credence to what the adjusted shows.
But believe or use or not what you want of course.
I'll use adjusted some but with caution, though less so when the scoreboard and virtually player pair points in the same direction.
I'll give you an example of my issues with adjusted +/-.
Only three Thunder players had positive adjusted +/-, Russell Westbrook, Desmond Mason and the highest one, Kyle Weaver.
Meanwhile, Durant had the worst, Nick had the second worst of players still on the team and Thabo was worse than Earl Watson...see my point?
If I were to ask everyone here what top 3 players best contribute to the Thunder's chances of winning ball games, do you really think they'd list Kyle Weaver, Desmond Mason and Russell Westbrook from 1-3, especially when all three of those players had negatives in the full +/-?
And guess which were the ONLY two thunder players to average positive +/-'s this past year...
Momo Sene (+8.06) and Steven Hill (a whopping +83.33).
What more else do I need to say?
Should be ...
McGee is -10 or worse with all of the top 10 Wizards by playing time in the link I provided ... on raw team +/- too
@Crow
McGee definitely played with Jamison and Butler, my point was that he never played with Jamison, Butler AND Young, Blatch, Songalia. Or basically, he always only played with one or two of the Wizard's positive +/- players, but never three or more for any significant stretch (which actually might reveal more about coaching decisions than any of the player's values, but we can't help that...unless they want to hire some of us. Hmmm...).
And your arguments for/against adjusted are definitely valid, but with each answer that adjusted +/- supplies it only raises two more questions. For example, since a player's share of the adjusted +/- for his team's positive success in the stat is, well, adjusted to determine what role or part he played in the relative performance of the team, then A) How is that statisic quantified and thus formulated to reach such a conclusion and then B) What correlation is present to support these assertions and what criterion might better serve both the statistic and the formula by which it is generated therein to reach a more definite conclusion.
Or in other words, who gets to decide how it's adjusted, why did they choose that specific set of metrics and if so, can that "formula" ever truly be considered legitimate since it has been tweaked with a specific statistical agenda in mind instead of simply recording untouched raw data?
To me, the statistics for McGee and the Wizards in general really lead to only one conclusion: That entire team underachieved even despite their injuries. But, of course, we knew that regardless of the stats, they just help support the conclusion (at least in this instance).
Don't want to use adjusted +/-? McGee is -10 or worse with all of the top 10 Wizards by playing time in the link I provided. No other Wizard rotation player is -10 or worse with more than 4. Even if adjusted and raw +/- are far from perfect and sometimes misses badly it is still something to consider.
JG your arguments have merit.
I've critiqued adjusted +/- probably in more detail than anyone in the advanced circle of apbrmetrics and it is far from solid but I'll still use it some to try to tease information that other stats can't.
When you play alongside the best players on your team, your odds of scoring more points than the other team go up... but your chance of getting a big share of the adjusted +/- credit may not get much easier. That is the whole point of adjusting. If the overall stats says the other players are responsible for most or all the credit most of the time they will get most or all of the adjusted +/- credit there is to go around and it is limited to the actual raw +/-. If he’s playing the majority of his minutes with four other people who are weak players they will get most of the blame for being weak. Most players play a good amount with strong and weak players. McGee played with Jamison 62% of the time, 2nd most with any of his teammates. He played with Butler 55% of the time, third most. http://www.82games.com/0809/0809WASP.HTM
@Crow
McGee's jumpshot, for a 7 foot rebounding, banging center, is about as overly positive as it can get since he actually has a true jumpshot out to 18 feet. In other words, he actually has a jumpshot. His form is excellent and his release is quick, thus he has the potential to shoot between 35-40% from the field just off of his jumpshot. Like most rookies, shot selection can be attributed to his first year's poor fg% via jumpshots, but the fact that a post-up center has a jumpshot (unlike the Krstic's and Big Z's of the league that are jumpshooting centers) to go along with his natural inclination to get his offense primarily around the rim, is a big deal.
And regarding the adjusted +/-, you and I have had this discussion before regarding the overall merit's of this system so I'll spare everyone else a renewal of the convo. But no matter how much someone tries to tweak a mathematical system of analysis (and let's be honest, the "adjusted +/- is even more arbitrarily fanagled than the straight forward +/-), it will never be able to "take into account" the unlimited scenario of variables that are present on the court during a basketball game, especially given such a limited sample size of 15 minutes or less for McGee.
There were only 5 players on the Wizards who had a positive adjusted +/-, and two of them (Blatche and Songalia) played the same position as McGee, which means he couldn't have been on the court with them. And since he RARELY ever started/played alongside Caron Butler, Nick Young and Antawn Jamison (i.e., the other three people with positive adjusted +/-'s), guess who McGee played with for the majority of his minutes then?
All that to say, what the "adjusted" +/- fails to show is what common sense SCREAMS to all of us: When you play alongside the best players on your team, your odds of scoring more points than the other team go up. And vice versa. So, again, if he's playing the majority of his minutes with four other people who all have negative +/-'s, you can't deduce anything concretely about his overall value and impact...even in such an arbitrary system as adjusted +/-.
Anonymous :tapdog 72 you are so stupid. yea lets just get rid of kevin and jeff and play with a bull crap lineup that would probalbly not even be a competitve team in college. ibaka come on. that the worst freakin lineup i have ever seen.
Go back, re-read what he said and then type a new answer. He said SUMMER LEAGUE LINEUP.
Thabeet vs McGee. I assume McGee rates the better offensive talent. I assume Thabeet would be considered a stronger defensive talent. But with McGee's rebounding and shotblocking you'd think he'd improve the defense but team defense is 4 pts worse with him on the court than off. Take away the college zone and college opponents and it is a different game. Good chance it will be for Thabeet too. Who ends up with the better career? That could well be McGee. Projection is difficult. A lot depends on system and fit. I guess you coud run with either but if you run- and play running, offensive players mostly elsewhere- are you going to get good defense? I doubt it.
Or if Lee is too much to give up maybe Nate Robinson & something to free up playing time for Rubio and save cap space. Or Wilcox in a separate but related sign n trade.
Lots of possibilities. This draft is as much about reading GMs as it is players. Not many should be content where fate landed them in the draft. Lots of the picks for teams in the mainstream mocks so far don't make really strong sense. Most should be trying to move up, down or out.
If NY offers Lee (to be the Griz PF they need) and 8 for 2 and something that could work out. Especially if Evans is still there at 8 or they can get a bit higher in another trade to get him for local ticket sales. Then NY signs Marion and /or perhaps makes more room for Galinari. That would help NY keep cap space.
@Nix
Yeah that's true. Maybe bargain all their picks this year and maybe next year's one and maybe even the year after that too.
@Royce
Does New York have much to bargain with?
I'm sure they want him, but I don't think they'll do it at jepordizing their run for LeBron
@Crow
I agree. I think New York is going to make a strong play to get to either 2 or 3.
Good to know Rubio can commmunicate in English but still remains to be seen if he can fit in, be accepted... and lead in a very different system.
Anyways I don't expect he will be in OKC.
Sacramento or NY (via a trade with Memphis) seem pretty strong possibilities. Memphis I can't tell.
I only mention what McGee's outside shot is right now because it was mentioned earlier in perhaps an overly positive way. Maybe it improves but with bigs the odds are modest.
McGee's adjusted +/- (different than just raw +/- at 82 games) takes into account the quality of how he plays with and against (often the worst players on the opposing team) and it was still -10 per 48 and worse than most of his teammates. Blatche by contrast was +3 and Songaila +2 in probably not that different a context. http://basketballvalue.com/teamplayers.php?year=2008-2009&team=WAS
Folks can rave about Durant and Green being complimentary personality wise but Durant is still Green's second worst player pair. Until that changes... not much changes. But wait n see in year 3.
i agree chas ...
dont sell the farm for griffin ...
with all the flaws you all seem to say jeff green has, he had a very solid second season, & showed marked improvement across the board.
we, as fans, tend to always focus on what a player can not do .. what green can do is rare in the league ... he offers A LOT of versatility ... i challenge you to find 5 young players that have the skill set & all around game uncle jeff has ... & one thing you can never underestimate - is the bond of the okc core - their wilingness to work together, complement each other & improve as a unit.
& griffin has already said on record that he would like to go somewhere else ... man has been in oklahoma his entire life.
& you guys should stop advocating trading for bad contracts - thats the quickest way to stunt the teams growth. (trust me, i live in philadelphia!)
the thunder are in a great position - young players, cap room, draft picks. you don't sacrifice that for nothing short of a sure thing - javale mcgee has not proven to be that.
@Bernard
Arenas could very easily be moved to the 2, which is actually more of a natural fit for his score first, distribute second mentality. A backcourt of a passer in Rubio and a relentless scorer in Arenas would be quite formidable.
why would wizard want rubio and they have Arena at pg?
he is not movable at all
@Crow
McGee is a true 7 foot center who bangs and blocks shots, did you really expect his jumper to be as good as a SF or guard's? How's Dwight Howard's jumper doing right now % wise? What about Shaq...oh wait, he doesn't even have a jumpshot. I mean I understand you're trying to give a balanced view of McGee, but his jumpshot % is the only thing you brought up that he doesn't do well? That's a little grasping for straws. At least talk about his lack of muscle mass and raw post up game, now that's something I can criticize whole-heartedly. :)
And McGee's +/- makes perfect sense when you factor in that he pretty much played when the games were over and he got to play with the worst Wizards players after their teams were getting killed. Just have a look at the +/-'s of all the players he played with and it will pretty much put the writing on the wall.
And for what it's worth, Rubio speaks English very well. Most Europeans with international experience do now (not to make a general statement or anything, of course it's called a general statement because they're generally true, but I digress...). That being said, I'd much rather have Harden and McGee than Rubio, that's for sure.
I would rather have McGee and Harden than Griffin any day. I think that Green will go eventually but it would be better not to bring in another superstar.
@Tapdog72
Man, talk about athletic.
@Nix
That's exactly my thinking and what I mean by "fits perfectly." Chemistry is something hard to duplicate. It's not like Blake Griffin is a bad guy and wouldn't fit right in, but Durant calls Green and Westbrook brothers. That's saying something.
Imagine this summer league lineup:
PG: Westbrook
SG: Harden
SF: Sefolosha
PF: Ibaka
C: McGee
Would you want to defend the fast break against that group? 4 guys who can get to the rim, and if you drop back, Harden hits the spot-up 3.
I think messing with Green would be messing with Durant's possibility of staying on the team. Those two worked out with each other all last summer and both came back phenomenally improved. They both pushed each other and it worked. Yes Griffin would be a better fit, but Green and Durant's friendship might be more valuable.
For what it is worth to you, a few brief comments from way outside...
JaVale McGee does some things well but others not yet. His jumper is weaker(26% FG) than Collison's and his adjusted +/- was third worst on the terrible Wizards, only topped by 2 guard well past 30.
I mentioned this with Ibaka to Joe but it may apply to Rubio. If he doesn't get the city he wants and the endorsements he needs to afford the buyout and he chooses to stay in europe for 3 seasons- til he is just 21= then he isn't bound by the rookie contract scale. There is an exception in the CBA for this. Teams can sign him for anything they want / have to then. I'd be very leery of Rubio unless he announces and shows an agreement in principle for a release from his contract before the draft runs. I'm leery of him anyways for other reasons- outside shot at least off the dribble and pressure or from NBA 3, strength/ injury risk/defensive foot-speed, whether American players will take leadership from a young european (how is his english? anybody report that yet? kinda important don't you think?) especially the Westbrook-Durant-Green, etc. clique, whether he'd stay, etc.
I'm with you, I wouldn't want to part with Green. The No. 1 goal of this franchise should be to keep Durant. I think you go a long way towards that with keeping Green around. Add to that, Green is a really, really good player. I think he is a future All-Star.
@Chas
I'm with you Chas. Though I only have a Green Thunder shirt, I would still be upset if we were to trade Green. You have to like that guy on this team!
Bob, that's disgusting. We have an effortless scorer so there would be no reason to go all desperate and throw 2 very good players just to get Griffin. OU's my alma mater but we already have our superstar! I don't like Griffin going to the Clips b/c it's sad but I also wouldn't have like seeing Griffin get all the attention in OKC after what Durant accomplished this year. Griffin's going to be fun to watch, but we don't NEED him! Besides, what would I do with my Green jersey?
A small trade down with Sactown or Washington is probably a more realistic trade option.
Both teams have decent inside prospects (Hawes, Thompson and McGee), bad contracts (Songaila, Thomas, Udrih) and (probably) interest in the third pick.
If possible I would not include the second first round pick, swapping a bad contract with a better one (Watson or Collison ?) and trading the better pick (especially if this is Rubio) is enough for me.
I would do a Rubio+Green for Griffin.
Green's skillset doesn't really complements Durant's one : he doesn't provide inside scoring, interior defense or good rebounding and his passing game (very good according to draft reports) is still invisible in the NBA.
Don't get me wrong he is a good player and will probably get better with time but he hasn't shown enough to be labelled intouchable in this kind of trade. Griffin provides most things the Thunder need inside while being a fan favorite and probably very happy to be in OK City long term, if you can get him without destroying your team you have to do it IMO...
If Washington really offered that deal, Presti should jump on it like a fat kid on a cupcake.
Though Rubio and Thabeet are rated higher in most mock drafts, getting Harden is probably the best thing for our team. And in addition to that, we'd get to add an athletic big man like JaVale McGee? NO DOUBT ABOUT IT. PULL THE TRIGGER PRESTI!
@Dai
African Birdman you must be kidding if you have did your study of Ibaka you would know that he has range on his shot up till the NBA 3pt. Plus his vertical jump was the highest in the workouts last year.
He could very well be alot more polished as a player after a year of playing in a very good european league also working with a Thunder coach to keep an eye on him and help his development.
Dai :@Pennington
Pennington :
So basically Mcgee is Serge Ibaka plus two inches and a year in the NBA?
No. McGee has a more polished offensive game. Ibaka is an African “Birdman”. To me, McGee is a more athletic and defensive-minded Channing Frye.
Draft Express agrees with you.
@Pennington
Pennington :
So basically Mcgee is Serge Ibaka plus two inches and a year in the NBA?
No. McGee has a more polished offensive game. Ibaka is an African "Birdman". To me, McGee is a more athletic and defensive-minded Channing Frye.