Statistical Analysis. Humor. Knicks.

Friday, April 18, 2014

2012 Report Card: Tyson Chandler

Stats:

Player Age G MP MPG PER TS% eFG% TRB% AST% TOV% USG%
Tyson Chandler 29 62 2061 33.2 18.7 0.708 0.679 17.2 4.3 17.1 13

Per 36 Minutes:

FGA 3PA 3P% FTA FT% ORB DRB TRB AST STL BLK TOV PF PTS
6.2 0 0 5.5 0.689 3.7 7 10.7 1 1 1.6 1.8 3.2 12.2

When thinking about Tyson Chandler, I can’t help but conjure that scene in Hoosiers where the freshly hired Norman Dale (played to the marrow by Gene Hackman) shows up to practice for the first time to find his charges mired in some half-assed scrimmage. The team’s yokel assistant keeps barking at the guys to “quit throwing it around and get it in the hole,” while Dale looks on, horrified. The two then engage in a super awkward exchange, culminating with yokel coach threatening to “strap your ass to a pine rail, and send you up the Monon line.”

Having assumed full command, Dale then proceeds to put his team – four-and-a-half players, remember – through a series of rigorous, defense-oriented drills that damn near end the Huskers’ season on account of mass death before it can even begin. Only they don’t die, they’re better for it, and their defense becomes just as important as any Jimmy Chitwood (Melo) jumper from thereon forward.

That’s Tyson Chandler.

Long before Mike Woodson’s [ostensibly] defense-first ascension brought about a top to bottom philosophical pole shift, the Knicks’ 12th hour offseason signing of Chandler signaled something of a sea change in an organization once again undertaken a course re-charting. Four years and $56 million later, the Knicks had added the final piece to the league’s most lucrative frontcourt. And despite the backcourt question marks and team turmoil doomed to follow, Tyson Chandler – from day one and with bearded aplomb – moored himself in a Garden floor typically wont for quicksand, “scrapping and yelling and mixing it up,” as another Hackman vessel might say.

Spending a full season covering for a pair of players almost savant-like in their defensive disinterestedness would’ve proven an injured errand for most. Instead, Chandler was one of the more durable cogs in a machine perpetually shedding bolts and gears in the form of knees, ankles, and other leg-related bits, this despite playing with a left wrist made of roast beef for much of the season.

He also charted the second highest field goal percentage in, like, a thousand years, which is ridiculous, no matter the system. Even more incredible, he did it with an offensive repertoire as dynamic as a Lunchable; oops, put-back slams, deep-paint flips, and little else (he attempted 10 shots beyond 10 feet this year – TEN!) Which hasn’t mattered much ever since Chandler first took the amateur plunge in 2001, when he was paired with fellow high school standout – and, by virtue of his extensive ballet training, far more offensively refined – Eddy Curry. Like any intelligent player, Chandler figured out a might quick that the key to his longevity had its pivot in the pivot’s essentials: defense, rebounding, energy, and a few loose ‘bows. It’s a formula that helped prove him the binding agent of a Dallas title team just a season ago, and one which will be key to any successful equation the Knicks manage to chart in the coming months and years.

As evidenced by a Defensive Player of the Year Award – the franchise’s first ever – and a second team All-NBA Defensive team selection (how you reconcile those two things, I have no idea), Chandler exhibited nothing in the way of payday malaise. If anything, he was the only point on the troika that truly earned his keep, in the process taking on the mantle of emotional and psychological leader. Even more remarkable was the effortlessness with which Tyson endeared himself to a fan base built largely on the currency of grit – grit and bad beards. In a city where quick fix solutions often result in the marshaling of stars as mercurial as they are polarizing, the stabilizing effect of Tyson’s grounded quawn is less a luxury than a necessity; the front office might continue to orbit a lifeless rock, but with Chandler, at least we know the locker room is in good hands.

Given their precarious cap situation, the Knicks have basically afforded themselves a two or three-year window within which to vindicate the current core. Fair or not, deserved or not, the burden’s onus will fall disproportionately about Melo and Amare’s shoulders. And, given their ring-less pedigrees and questionable two-way ethics, it probably should. Chandler, on the other hand, is the kid who can do no wrong; the Galahad at a table full of flawed peers; the good apple in a barrel risking rot. I mean, you know, minus the dumbass techs.

Because of Tyson, the Knicks’ D – in less than a year – went from league laughingstock (21st in defensive efficiency last year) to the ones holding the whoopie cushions and squirting flowers (5th). In an Eastern Conference where the M.O. has been – and will most likely continue to be – defense first, second, and last, that’s no small thing. As such, rediscovering their decade-past taste for blood and box-outs will be key to the Knicks’ future prospects, while that of an offensive fool’s gold fades into the forgotten.

In the wake of Mike Woodson’s multi-year extension, it’s likely that this season’s stretch run will serve as the philosophical template going forward. Whether that means an iso-Joe-like, Melo-centric offense, one built around the quickness and probing prowess of Lin, or something wholly other, it’s clear that defense will be the team’s North Star for the foreseeable future. And Woodson doubtless deserves partial credit for that. The rest goes to number six.

Grades (5 point scale):
Offense: 4
Defense: 7,000,049
Teamwork: 5
Rootability: 5
Performance/Expectations: 5
Final Grade: A

126 comments on “2012 Report Card: Tyson Chandler

  1. Loathing

    I dunno….I think you coulda graded the defense a bit higher…he IS the NBA defensive player of the year y’know… :P

  2. Nick C.

    A near perfect score. The ten shots outside of ten feet is a blessing and a curse, a blessing in that he doesn’t do things he sucks at, a curse in that he is quite limited in that regard.

    Predictions on how long before a post disputing the veracity of this sentence and # of posts regarding same:
    “Spending a full season covering for a pair of players almost autistic in their defensive disinterestedness”

  3. Jim Cavan Post author

    Nick C.:
    A near perfect score. The ten shots outside of ten feet is a blessing and a curse, a blessing in that he doesn’t do things he sucks at, a curse in that he is quite limited in that regard.

    Predictions on how long before a post disputing the veracity of this sentence and # of posts regarding same:
    “Spending a full season covering for a pair of players almost autistic in their defensive disinterestedness”

    Sevant-like? Sevant-like.

  4. johnlocke

    Nice write-up! That score on offense is a bit high though. Yes, he led the league in FG%, but he only averaged 11 points a game. I’d give him a 3 on offense…still an A overall. He needs to develop at least one offensive go to move. Even Kendrick Perkins has that hook that he goes to from time to time. If you could up his average to 15 pts a game or so, that would be huge for the team.

  5. d-mar

    Chandler brought a whole new mindset to this team, and for that I will always be thankful. Unfortunately, my last memory of him is an awful series vs. Miami, including a shocking sequence in game 5 where he watched Wade go by him for a layup without even moving. I guess we can give him a pass for his illness, but he pretty much sucked all 5 games.

    But I do not think it’s something to be overly concerned about, I just think he was totally out of it from game 1 and we won’t see that again.

  6. thenamestsam

    I think the offense score and the overall score are a little high. He had more of an A-/B+ season for me, especially when the F playoffs are factored in. Dynamite defensive player, but being able to occasionally hit a 12 foot jumper and/or having one post move he can at least threaten to use when a smaller guy is guarding him would be big.

  7. Kurt

    d-mar: we often forget that athletes are also human. If we had the flu, how long would it take US to get back to work, let alone compete with other world class athletes?

    I believe I’ve read that, in post-playoff interviews, Chandler said that he’d work on his mid-range jump shot. I think I’ve also read somewhere that he used to be much more offensively skilled, but decided to focus his time and attention to the ways he’d be most efficient.

    If he spends the offseason working on that jump-shot, the Knicks could use Amar’e much more in the pick and roll. I think a good portion for the reason Chandler was used rather than Amar’e was that Amar’e is a threat from mid-range, while, if Chandler wasn’t used as the roll man, it would be 4 on 5 and ruin the spacing.

  8. johnlocke

    That’s a recipe for disaster. Chandler is not going to transform into a good/useful/efficient jump shooter over the summer. He needs to get better at catching and finishing in traffic, looking for the ball and getting a dependable post-up move – a hook shot. Have Amare work on getting his mid-range back to form over the summer, he has a history of a good mid-range shot.

    Kurt:
    d-mar: we often forget that athletes are also human. If we had the flu, how long would it take US to get back to work, let alone compete with other world class athletes?

    I believe I’ve read that, in post-playoff interviews, Chandler said that he’d work on his mid-range jump shot. I think I’ve also read somewhere that he used to be much more offensively skilled, but decided to focus his time and attention to the ways he’d be most efficient.

    If he spends the offseason working on that jump-shot, the Knicks could use Amar’e much more in the pick and roll. I think a good portion for the reason Chandler was used rather than Amar’e was that Amar’e is a threat from mid-range, while, if Chandler wasn’t used as the roll man, it would be 4 on 5 and ruin the spacing.

  9. The Honorable Cock Jowles

    How is Chandler anything less than an offensive juggernaut?

    Whether he can shoot outside of 10 feet is of absolutely ZERO concern. On the flip side of that coin is that if it were as easy to do what Chandler did this year, others would have done it.

    http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/ts_pct_season.html

    Guess what? They haven’t. Dunks and layups are not “easy” shots. They require size and quickness and body control and toughness. And to have gone from the World Champion Mavericks (where he also posted legendary efficiency numbers) to a dysfunctional, point-guard-less Knicks team and replicate those numbers are a testament to his ability to do one thing better than ANYONE has ever done it in the history of the NBA/ABA.

    He had the single HIGHEST TS% IN THE HISTORY OF THE LEAGUE.

    Again, I say: if he’s so “limited,” why don’t other players of his size and stature do what he does with equal proficiency? No one save Harden and Ginobili come close to doing what he does. He doesn’t waste possessions on ill-fated jump shots. When he has the ball, he’s likely to score points. How is that not a 5 out of 5?

  10. johnlocke

    Because TS% isn’t the end all and be all of basketball production. Actual production matters too. He averaged 11 points a game on 6 shots per game…that is no offensive juggernaut.

    That’s 6 shots out of the 72 shots per game the Knicks took on average this season. Artis Gilmore was more impressive, he attempted twice as many shots as Chandler.

    The Honorable Cock Jowles:
    How is Chandler anything less than an offensive juggernaut?

    Whether he can shoot outside of 10 feet is of absolutely ZERO concern. On the flip side of that coin is that if it were as easy to do what Chandler did this year, others would have done it.

    http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/ts_pct_season.html

    Guess what? They haven’t. Dunks and layups are not “easy” shots. They require size and quickness and body control and toughness. And to have gone from the World Champion Mavericks (where he also posted legendary efficiency numbers) to a dysfunctional, point-guard-less Knicks team and replicate those numbers are a testament to his ability to do one thing better than ANYONE has ever done it in the history of the NBA/ABA.

    He had the single HIGHEST TS% IN THE HISTORY OF THE LEAGUE.

    Again, I say: if he’s so “limited,” why don’t other players of his size and stature do what he does with equal proficiency? No one save Harden and Ginobili come close to doing what he does. He doesn’t waste possessions on ill-fated jump shots. When he has the ball, he’s likely to score points. How is that not a 5 out of 5?

  11. thenamestsam

    johnlocke:
    Because TS% isn’t the end all and be all of basketball production. Actual production matters too. He averaged 11 points a game on 6 shots per game…that is no offensive juggernaut.

    That’s 6 shots out of the 72 shots per game the Knicks took on average this season. Artis Gilmore was more impressive, he attempted twice as many shots as Chandler.

    Exactly. If you take Chandler’s amazing TS% and lower it to something reasonable but incredibly non-historic like Joel Anthony’s .598 you’re talking about a loss of 1.75 points a game (If anyone wants to check my math, from a TS% of .708 and Chandler’s 699 points I get 493.6 TSA, changing that to .598 and I get 590 points, a difference of 109 in 60 some games) . That’s definitely something, but even if you believe that teammates have very little impact on each other’s production I still think you’d accept that it’s possible that the impact is on that scale.

    Chandler being capable of hitting a jumper wouldn’t open up the Knicks for one extra hoop a night? If it did it would more than offset the difference in his historic TS%. What I see on offense is one world class skill, finishing at the rim, and a number of other skills that are complete zeroes: passing, shooting, post moves. The thing he is elite at allows him to post phenomenal TS%. The things he is terrible at hinder his teammates from doing the same. On the whole I think he’s basically an average offensive player.

  12. johnlocke

    Agreed with everything you said, except the last thing I want to see if Chandler shooting jump shots. We’re already a sub-par jump shooting team, don’t want to add Chandler jumpers to that mix. What we do lack on offense is a low-post up presence. We have one player that capably does this and it’s our SF. Amare or Chandler should be developing post moves. Because Amare – hopefully after getting his jumper back to historical averages – should take/make more mid-range jumpers, it’s really up to Chandler to develop a left / right hook. I even remember a nice left handed hook he had against the Lakers during Linsanity. That would hopefully give our offense another post-up option in the post outside of Melo, which would help his teammates.

    thenamestsam: Exactly. If you take Chandler’s amazing TS% and lower it to something reasonable but incredibly non-historic like Joel Anthony’s .598 you’re talking about a loss of 1.75 points a game (If anyone wants to check my math, from a TS% of .708 and Chandler’s 699 points I get 493.6 TSA, changing that to .598 and I get 590 points, a difference of 109 in 60 some games) . That’s definitely something, but even if you believe that teammates have very little impact on each other’s production I still think you’d accept that it’s possible that the impact is on that scale.

    Chandler being capable of hitting a jumper wouldn’t open up the Knicks for one extra hoop a night? If it did it would more than offset the difference in his historic TS%. What I see on offense is one world class skill, finishing at the rim, and a number of other skills that are complete zeroes: passing, shooting, post moves. The thing he is elite at allows him to post phenomenal TS%. The things he is terrible at hinder his teammates from doing the same. On the whole I think he’s basically an average offensive player.

  13. thenamestsam

    johnlocke:
    Agreed with everything you said, except the last thing I want to see if Chandler shooting jump shots. We’re already a sub-par jump shooting team, don’t want to add Chandler jumpers to that mix. What we do lack on offense is a low-post up presence. We have one player that capably does this and it’s our SF. Amare or Chandler should be developing post moves. Because Amare – hopefully after getting his jumper back to historical averages – should take/make more mid-range jumpers, it’s really up to Chandler to develop a left / right hook. I even remember a nice left handed hook he had against the Lakers during Linsanity. That would hopefully give our offense another post-up option in the post outside of Melo, which would help his teammates.

    Post moves would be lovely too, but I think a jumper would be helpful. I’m not talking about him shooting a whole bunch of jumpers, but even taking one every other game and showing that he could make it would force his man to stay home a little and open things up down low for both Melo’s post game and Amare PnRs.

    For as much as we talked on here this year about Melo’s struggles finishing at the rim I think a big part of it is bad spacing on offense and specifically Chandler’s man being in position to contest everything.

  14. ephus

    Chandler was an amazing asset this season. If he could develop an in-the-lane jumper so that he does not have to get all the way to the rim on the pick and roll, he would become an even greater asset. Near the end of the season, teams were having a perimeter player rotate to try to take the charge when Chandler caught the ball on the dive. That strategy would be ineffective to challenge Chandler on the 8′ – 12′ in-the-lane jumper.

  15. The Honorable Cock Jowles

    thenamestsam: Exactly. If you take Chandler’s amazing TS% and lower it to something reasonable but incredibly non-historic like Joel Anthony’s .598 you’re talking about a loss of 1.75 points a game (If anyone wants to check my math, from a TS% of .708 and Chandler’s 699 points I get 493.6 TSA, changing that to .598 and I get 590 points, a difference of 109 in 60 some games) . That’s definitely something, but even if you believe that teammates have very little impact on each other’s production I still think you’d accept that it’s possible that the impact is on that scale.

    Do you know how huge a number like +1.75 ppg is in expected W-L? And for that to be the delta on just ONE player? Take 1.75 ppg (in efficiency) away from your five starters and you go from a playoff team with homecourt advantage to a lottery-bound team.

    His efficiency is so, so, so, so valuable. Shots are a finite resource to a basketball team, and so when he doesn’t require many shots to get his 11 ppg, it means more points.

  16. The Honorable Cock Jowles

    Z: Apparently Tim Legler was also an offensive juggernaut.

    He was efficient for two years. I don’t care what kind of an idiot he is on ESPN, and I don’t care how he looked on the floor: his numbers say that for those two years, he was an extremely efficient scorer in limited usage.

    Not many players can post those efficiency numbers at ANY usage, so I see no point in saying, “Well, Chandler’s a black hole outside of 10 feet, so he’s not very good offensively.” What he does is score at a ridiculous efficiency (and play great defense). When other players can replicate that, I’ll start saying that he’s overrated, too.

    And the whole business about him hindering his teammates because he “can’t pass”: complete and utter bullshit. Why would a player who can dunk over any player in the league pass out of a high-percentage shot? And how did it hurt the Mavs last season? The problem isn’t Chandler.

  17. bobneptune

    The Honorable Cock Jowles:
    How is Chandler anything less than an offensive juggernaut?

    Whether he can shoot outside of 10 feet is of absolutely ZERO concern. On the flip side of that coin is that if it were as easy to do what Chandler did this year, others would have done it.

    http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/ts_pct_season.html

    Guess what? They haven’t. Dunks and layups are not “easy” shots. They require size and quickness and body control and toughness. And to have gone from the World Champion Mavericks (where he also posted legendary efficiency numbers) to a dysfunctional, point-guard-less Knicks team and replicate those numbers are a testament to his ability to do one thing better than ANYONE has ever done it in the history of the NBA/ABA.

    He had the single HIGHEST TS% IN THE HISTORY OF THE LEAGUE.

    Again, I say: if he’s so “limited,” why don’t other players of his size and stature do what he does with equal proficiency? No one save Harden and Ginobili come close to doing what he does. He doesn’t waste possessions on ill-fated jump shots. When he has the ball, he’s likely to score points. How is that not a 5 out of 5?

    because they keep score in the nba by points and not ts%.

    also, lol at DPOY as selected by the sage media. Ibaka, Lebron and Howard sez hai.

  18. thenamestsam

    The Honorable Cock Jowles: Do you know how huge a number like +1.75 ppg is in expected W-L? And for that to be the delta on just ONE player? Take 1.75 ppg (in efficiency) away from your five starters and you go from a playoff team with homecourt advantage to a lottery-bound team.

    His efficiency is so, so, so, so valuable. Shots are a finite resource to a basketball team, and so when he doesn’t require many shots to get his 11 ppg, it means more points.

    But again you’re assuming zero interaction effects. His efficiency is great. Historic. Phenomenal. But he averages 8 true attempts a game. The rest of the team combined averages about 88. He’s not on the floor for all of those, but maybe he’s on the court for 50. How much would ha have to be lowering the TS% of those attempts on average to offset the benefits of his insanely high TS%? To get an extra 1.75 points out of those possessions the teams TS% would have to go up by less than .02. You don’t think interaction effects count for that much?

  19. jon abbey

    The Honorable Cock Jowles:
    How is Chandler anything less than an offensive juggernaut?

    hahahahaha, thank you for the (unintentionally) funniest thing I’ve read all day.

    I’m also still giggling about your assertion a few months back that Miami would be improved by having Jerome Jordan in their rotation over Joel Anthony.

  20. jon abbey

    also, it’s quite possible that Chandler’s inability to do almost anything with the ball when they (mostly inexplicably IMO) give him it at the top of the circle costs NY more than that 1.75 points per game. I’d even say it’s likely.

  21. The Honorable Cock Jowles

    jon abbey:
    also, it’s quite possible that Chandler’s inability to do almost anything with the ball when they (mostly inexplicably IMO) give him it at the top of the circle costs NY more than that 1.75 points per game. I’d even say it’s likely.

    That is batshit crazy insane. Are you telling me that team’s need a fucking center who can shoot the ball at the top of the circle? Are you suggesting that Chandler become more like Amar’e Stoudemire? Are you kidding me?

  22. The Honorable Cock Jowles

    bobneptune: because they keep score in the nba by points and not ts%.

    also, lol at DPOY as selected by the sage media. Ibaka, Lebron and Howard sez hai.

    How the fuck does TS% not have to do with points? You realize that TS% is a pretty good estimate of how well a player converts attempts to points, even if it doesn’t account for the exact location of the player during said shot attempt, right? And even if we go by eFG%, that’s going to predict how many points a team scores pretty fucking accurately, huh?

    What’s this “basketball games are won by points” bullshit? Read the fucking stats guide at the top of the page, for fuck’s sake.

  23. The Honorable Cock Jowles

    thenamestsam: How much would ha have to be lowering the TS% of those attempts on average to offset the benefits of his insanely high TS%? To get an extra 1.75 points out of those possessions the teams TS% would have to go up by less than .02. You don’t think interaction effects count for that much?

    Why are we arguing that Tyson Chandler somehow makes his teammates fucking worse because he can’t shoot a 25-foot jumper?

  24. Frank

    THCJ – I half think you are just pursuing this line of argument just to get some replies, but if you’re not, you ARE actually just making a silly argument.

    What kind of offense do you think you would have if you paired Tyson Chandler, Kenneth Faried, Steve Novak, Daniel Green, and Jordan Farmar? Their combined TS is probably 63 or something. Would they be the most efficient offense in the history of the NBA?

    Context matters. The thrower of the pass to TC matters. The spacing that is created by Novak being on the floor and shading of defense towards Carmelo matters.

  25. Frank

    The Honorable Cock Jowles: Why are we arguing that Tyson Chandler somehow makes his teammates fucking worse because he can’t shoot a 25-foot jumper?

    I am arguing that Tyson Chandler makes his teammates fucking worse because when he is 5 feet from the rim with a smaller defender on him, he should be shooting a jump hook at 55-60% FG% rather than passing the ball out to Melo with 6 seconds on the shot clock so he can fire up a 21 footer.

    I am arguing that Tyson makes his teammates fucking worse because when he has the ball at the top of the key, rather than having to respect a mid-range jump shot, his defender sags way into the paint and messes up interior spacing.

    There’s no question that Tyson is great at what he does, and that he does not waste possessions doing things that he is NOT good at. But all that does is pass the buck. Rather than just celebrating him for not doing what he’s not good at, why not ask him to BE BETTER AT MORE THINGS!?!?!?!?!?

    The patron saint of WoW (David Lee) managed to add a 15 foot jumper to his game, and worked hard to develop a bunch of moves around the basket (which he did not necessarily have when he came into the league as a rook).

    All I want is a 5-8 foot jumphook and for him to occasionally take (and make) a 15 foot jump shot when it is WIDE OPEN. No one is asking him to take 3 pointers.

  26. Z

    The Honorable Cock Jowles: He was efficient for two years. I don’t care what kind of an idiot he is on ESPN, and I don’t care how he looked on the floor: his numbers say that for those two years, he was an extremely efficient scorer in limited usage.

    But the rest of his career says he was a scrub (both statistically, visually, and ESPN commentatorially). He was a mediocre-at-best scorer before his 100 games of “juggernaut” play, and he was horrible after them. Doesn’t this imply that he just hit a lot of 3 pointers one year, and that when people started closing out on him, he stopped making them (a la Shawne Williams, Steve Novak, Jason Kapono, etc…). In all seriousness, does that really make one a “juggernaut”.

  27. thenamestsam

    The Honorable Cock Jowles: Why are we arguing that Tyson Chandler somehow makes his teammates fucking worse because he can’t shoot a 25-foot jumper?

    Why answer a question with another question? Why not answer mine? You really don’t think that the ability to make a jump shot affects your teammates production? You believe that NBA players have 0 affect on other players production?

    If no one ever took jumpers teams would put all five defenders at the rim and it would be damn near impossible to score there. Teams don’t do that because players in the NBA can make jump shots. Consequently the players who can take and make jump shots open up the ability to score at the rim for their teammates because their man isn’t at the rim contesting. Every time Melo or Amare or Lin drives to the rim and instead of laying the ball in they get blocked by Tyson’s man who can afford to leave Tyson all alone 8 feet from the hoop he costs the team points. So in conclusion I’m not sure why you made that statement like it was insane. Relative to someone who can make a 25 foot jumper Chandler absolutely makes his teammates worse.

  28. thenamestsam

    Frank:

    There’s no question that Tyson is great at what he does, and that he does not waste possessions doing things that he is NOT good at. But all that does is pass the buck.

    +1. This, to me, is the obvious flaw in looking exclusively at efficiency. If basketball didn’t have a shot clock than efficiency would be king. But there’s a clock. Someone has to shoot. It’s obviously way better that Chandler makes the shots when he shoots it than if he missed them, but on the vast majority of possessions he doesn’t shoot the ball and some other player has to. He’s just passing the buck. And when he fails to make it easier for his teammates to use those possessions efficiently he hurts them team.

    Here’s a simple though experiment. Chandler learns to shoot a jumper at 50% this summer. The only possessions he uses the jumper are when the only other shot available to the Knicks is a 30% shot (because say the clock is running out, or because the choice was between someone taking a layup with Chandler’s man contesting or kicking to him for an open 12 footer). Clearly, in this hypothetical, through his own improvement he has improved the Knicks offense. Now instead of 30% shots on some possessions they get 50% shots. And yet efficiency tells us that Chandler is a worse player than before because now instead of taking exclusively 70% dunks he peppers in some 50% jumpers. Is this not an obvious flaw?

  29. ephus

    I think the fundamental question with Tyson Chandler is whether the Knicks can be a title-contender if Chandler repeats his 2011-12 season. I say yes, because the great defense, rebounding and finishes at the rim contribute more than is lost by his lack of a jump shot or ball handling. Of course, as I wrote above, it would be great Chandler could add a 12′ jump shot. But even if he does not, I think the Knicks still are happy with his production at his salary level. YMMV.

  30. nicos

    While I’d probably still give him a 5 offensively the usage number really is an issue- especially when you factor in how often the Knicks started their sets trying to run the pnr with him. The Knicks expended a ton of energy for a pretty low volume of shots. Also, it’s tough to call Chandler’s season one of the all-time best when he didn’t even lead his own team in ppp- Novak did- because Chandler turned the ball over a lot. And ppp doesn’t even count how many times Knicks guards turned the ball over trying to get the ball to him- how many misguided alley-oops did Fields throw him this year? At the end of the day, despite the fact that the Knicks had 2 guys who THCJ would say had all-time great seasons, they ranked 21st in offense and it’s not because they ignored Novak and Chandler- they tried pretty hard to get those guys shots, those guys just have limited games that make getting them a high volume of shots impossible.

    As for next season, I’d prefer Chandler work on a foul line jumper, especially as Woodson seems to like using him in the high-post. He’s improved his free throw shooting enough that he should be able to knock that shot down somewhat efficiently. I think adding a 12-14 foot jumper would help the Knicks offense more than adding what would probably be a very rudimentary post move at this point.

    Finally, we shouldn’t forget that Chandler played the second half of the season with a bum wrist- not only did he have more trouble with the catch, he didn’t attack the rim quite as ferociously as he did in the first half of the season- his TS% was .723 through the game at Dallas and was .685 thereafter. And his turnover % increased from 15 to 19. Even though he threw away the wrist brace, I thought it was pretty clear the wrist bothered him throughout the whole second half of the season.

  31. thenamestsam

    jon abbey: hahahahaha, thank you for the (unintentionally) funniest thing I’ve read all day.

    I’m also still giggling about your assertion a few months back that Miami would be improved by having Jerome Jordan in their rotation over Joel Anthony.

    In this article (which actually has a perfectly reasonable conclusion), Ibaka gets called “arguably the Thunder’s best player”. Along the same lines and I got a serious kick out of it. Meant to post it yesterday but forgot.

    http://wagesofwins.com/2012/05/28/okc-ditch-perkins-if-you-want-any-hope/

  32. jon abbey

    The Honorable Cock Jowles: That is batshit crazy insane. Are you telling me that team’s need a fucking center who can shoot the ball at the top of the circle? Are you suggesting that Chandler become more like Amar’e Stoudemire? Are you kidding me?

    actually I’m not saying that at all. what I’m saying is that the five seconds the team almost invariably wastes by giving him the ball there, while it occasionally leads to better spacing and a good shot, is almost certainly an overall drag on the offense.

  33. Frank

    The issue with WoW, WS/48, etc. as far as I can tell is that it greatly rewards players for using possessions efficiently. That sounds like a no-brainer – obviously we all want players to be efficient.

    Problem is – if you want a balanced offense in the NBA, you need to be able to score in multiple ways, thereby forcing defenses to defend the entire court rather than pack into hotspots.

    What defines a bad player no matter what stat system you believe in is a guy who constantly does things that he is no good at – ie. a high-volume low efficiency player, who shoots a lot of 3s when he’s shooting 25%, for instance – ie. TD 2012. he is actively taking lots of shots that are inefficient, thereby not allowing other players to take more efficient shots.

    One definition of a “good player” by things like PER (which rewards volume) is a guy who shoots a lot (high usage) with middling or better efficiency. These guys take shots that are neutral to the team’s overall efficiency, and score a lot of overall points because of the # of shots taken, ie. Melo.

    The definition of a GREAT WoW player is someone who refuses to take any shots that he isn’t good at ie – TC had, what, 2 shots outside the paint the entire year? He is exceptionally efficient which is great. Trouble is – like someone noted above, he only shot the ball 6 times per 36, or 8 times per 48. If you figure the average game has about 80 shots per team, that means 72 times someone else has to shoot.

    The definition of a GREAT player no matter what system you use (ie. Lebron, Durant) is that he can be very efficient AND have high usage. How do you do that? By diversifying the ways you can score with efficiency – so you can shoot 6 shots in the paint per game like TC, but also 3 shots from mid range, 3 3′s/game, and 2 transition buckets. TC almost certainly won’t shoot 3′s, but could get 8 shots in the paint, 1-2 mid-range J’s… cont….

  34. formido

    No, the definition of a great player is the one who has the largest effect on winning. Period.

    Your defense and rebounding could, in theory, be good enough that your team wins every single game without you scoring a point.

    This series makes an extremely compelling case that, if you had to pick a first player to start a team from any player in NBA history, you should choose Dennis Rodman:

    http://skepticalsports.com/?page_id=1222

    Now, you’re free to argue using intuition, logic, or evidence. But:

    “hahaha, thanks for the unintended comedy”

    …or any similar response will only mark its emitter as a moron.

  35. Z

    I don’t think Chandler should change anything. Just keep doing what he does best. He does what few other players do, and it isn’t just score efficiently on low usage– It is play all-NBA quality basketball without the ball, and make the team exponentially better in the process (without being an offensive juggernaut). Adding a 15 footer or a jump hook would be more pain than it’s worth…

  36. Frank

    Z:
    I don’t think Chandler should change anything. Just keep doing what he does best. He does what few other players do, and it isn’t just score efficiently on low usage– It is play all-NBA quality basketball without the ball, and make the team exponentially better in the process (without being an offensive juggernaut). Adding a 15 footer or a jump hook would be more pain than it’s worth…

    I don’t think he HAS to learn any other offense for the Knicks to be contenders – he obviously showed that last year when Dallas won. But when you don’t have Dirk Nowitzki wrecking a defense by dragging interior defenders out to the 3 point line, IMHO one of your big men needs to be able to make defenses pay for packing the paint. Either he or Amare has to be able to shoot a mid-range jumper as an outlet when the middle gets bottled up. A baby jump hook might prevent some of his offensive fouls (ie. he doesn’t need to charge to the hoop even when the D is in good position), and would prevent him from having to pass the ball out when there is no driving lane and he’s 2 feet from the goal.

  37. ephus

    I absolutely agree that Amar’e needs to recover his ability to make the elbow jumper in order for the Knick offense to work. That shot was available to him the entire season, but he was literally the league worst at it — hitting only 16%. League average from that spot is 40%. If Amar’e regains his touch from that spot, it becomes much tougher to blitz the PnR or to double ‘Melo when he is working the opposite wing.

    If Chandler only remains as good as he was this year, the Knicks can seriously contend if Amar’e returns to being an offensive force.

  38. TelegraphedPass

    Z: I don’t think Chandler should change anything. Just keep doing what he does best. He does what few other players do, and it isn’t just score efficiently on low usage– It is play all-NBA quality basketball without the ball, and make the team exponentially better in the process (without being an offensive juggernaut). Adding a 15 footer or a jump hook would be more pain than it’s worth…

    Agree with Z here. Mostly, I just doubt he can incorporate a dangerous enough jump shot to command sufficient attention. Look at Rajon Rondo. We are all aware that Rondo has a hotspot from midrange where he’s actually a great shooter, per Goldsberry. That doesn’t keep most defenses from playing off him and daring him to shoot.

    Defenses would love to have more possessions end in jumpshots, and to have those shots coming from Rondo or Tyson would be even better in their eyes. I don’t think Tyson attempting more jumpers will help our team’s offense. Finding a finesse shooting big who is a bigger threat from midrange would be really helpful, though. I wish there was one available…

    O hai Lamar!

  39. Z

    I just think it’s a waste of time hoping for a 30 year old to change his ways. It’s not like all of the other coaches and trainers he played for said “you’re perfect, don’t worry that you have no offensive game beyond 5 feet.” I’m sure they’ve all tried to change him, and this is the results… Love him for what he is, not what he ain’t.

  40. jon abbey

    I don’t really think Chandler should change much either, but I also think it’s laughable to think that he was a positive influence on the offense for the majority of games this year.

  41. thenamestsam

    Z:
    I just think it’s a waste of time hoping for a 30 year old to change his ways. It’s not like all of the other coaches and trainers he played for said “you’re perfect, don’t worry that you have no offensive game beyond 5 feet.” I’m sure they’ve all tried to change him, and this is the results… Love him for what he is, not what he ain’t.

    I certainly didn’t mean to imply that I don’t love him, and I think you’re probably right that he never will learn to hit a jumper. But the entire purpose of the report card is to assess the value of his season, and I don’t think it’s unfair in that context to point out that his inability to do anything well on offense other than dunk the ball limits his value on that end of the floor (in my opinion, obviously some people disagree strongly with that). My emotion based grade for Chandler would be an A+ that is somehow also a smiley face, but I don’t think that’s really the point of the exercise.

  42. JC Knickfan

    The only thing I ask TC is continue to work on foul shooting. 75% would be nice.

    On offense end I wouldn’t ask much more then reproducing what he did this year. Between Lin, Amare (hopefully with the2nd unit) and Melo I presume that going to be 60% of your offense next year. Those 3 are one that need to work most on gelling on the offense.

  43. Z-man

    The original point of contention is re: the grade Chandler should get for O. I think the 4 is fair because you can make compelling arguments for a 3 or a 5. I agree with THCJ in that if it was so easy, more people would do it. On the other hand, if the makeup of his team suggests that he needs to do more than take a small volume of super high-% shots, yet he has no way to do it without a serious drop in efficiency, he becomes part of the problem.

    Would the Celts be better off right now vs. the Heat with Chandler’s O vs. KG’s O? I doubt it.

  44. The Honorable Cock Jowles

    So because Chandler can’t hit a jump shot, he doesn’t “create space” for his teammates by being a ridiculously good PnR roller?

    I don’t understand how some players are valued for being so good at a particular type of offensive play that they “demand” attention from the other team, yet a player as good as Chandler would just receive the “I don’t know, he probably has no impact on a team’s gameplan” treatment.

    Pick a side.

  45. The Honorable Cock Jowles

    Z-man:
    The original point of contention is re: the grade Chandler should get for O.I think the 4 is fair because you can make compelling arguments for a 3 or a 5. I agree with THCJ in that if it was so easy, more people would do it.On the other hand, if the makeup of his team suggests that he needs to do more than take a small volume of super high-% shots, yet he has no way to do it without a serious drop in efficiency, he becomes part of the problem.

    Would the Celts be better off right now vs. the Heat with Chandler’s O vs. KG’s O? I doubt it.

    Also, didn’t he play nearly the whole season without a decent point guard? Shouldn’t a guy as limited as he is be limited also by not having a good distributor? Yet he wasn’t…

  46. TelegraphedPass

    The Honorable Cock Jowles: Also, didn’t he play nearly the whole season without a decent point guard? Shouldn’t a guy as limited as he is be limited also by not having a good distributor? Yet he wasn’t…

    Easier to throw a lob than penetrate the first line of defense and kick but I’m sleep and don’t need that ire…

  47. Z-man

    jon abbey: I don’t really think Chandler should change much either, but I also think it’s laughable to think that he was a positive influence on the offense for the majority of games this year.

    While I wouldn’t give him a “5″ I do think that he was very valuable on both ends. If tip-outs are an offensive stat (and the statistical def of “possession” says that it is, then he was very valuable in that area. He also gives a good PG excellent angles for P&R passes and finishes, which draws attention away from the ball-handler and outlet guys. He’s a huge presence around the basket that has to be accounted for. Overall, he is a hugely valuable player, but like many others, he can’t carry a team’s offensive load. He can, however, make other guys better on offense with his efficiency and intangibles. I would have to agree with THCJ in that he is definitely not the problem for us. Because of the PG problem on our team, his limitations are seen as liabilities, but it’s really not his fault. You don’t lament that the guy paid to be the PG doesn’t block more shots just because the team has a terrible defensive center.

  48. Frank

    The Honorable Cock Jowles:
    So because Chandler can’t hit a jump shot, he doesn’t “create space” for his teammates by being a ridiculously good PnR roller?

    I don’t understand how some players are valued for being so good at a particular type of offensive play that they “demand” attention from the other team, yet a player as good as Chandler would just receive the “I don’t know, he probably has no impact on a team’s gameplan” treatment.

    Pick a side.

    No doubt that at as a PNR roll man he is awesome. But even being the main option on that play for the entire year he only managed 6 FGA and including all his FGA and FTA he accounted for only 7.5% of the Knicks total non-TO possessions.

    No one is saying that he’s not a useful player. I’m just saying he might potentially be MORE useful.

    Z:
    I just think it’s a waste of time hoping for a 30 year old to change his ways.

    I don’t think asking a professional athlete making $14MM/year to practice a jump hook and shoot 15 foot jumpers all offseason is such a chore. Many players have added elements to their game at the age of 29-30. Jordan became a much better jump shooter. KG has also become a much better shooter later in his career.

  49. Glew

    Frank: I am arguing that Tyson Chandler makes his teammates fucking worse because when he is 5 feet from the rim with a smaller defender on him, he should be shooting a jump hook at 55-60% FG% rather than passing the ball out to Melo with 6 seconds on the shot clock so he can fire up a 21 footer.

    I am arguing that Tyson makes his teammates fucking worse because when he has the ball at the top of the key, rather than having to respect a mid-range jump shot, his defender sags way into the paint and messes up interior spacing.

    There’s no question that Tyson is great at what he does, and that he does not waste possessions doing things that he is NOT good at. But all that does is pass the buck.Rather than just celebrating him for not doing what he’s not good at, why not ask him to BE BETTER AT MORE THINGS!?!?!?!?!?

    The patron saint of WoW (David Lee) managed to add a 15 foot jumper to his game, and worked hard to develop a bunch of moves around the basket (which he did not necessarily have when he came into the league as a rook).

    All I want is a 5-8 foot jumphook and for him to occasionally take (and make) a 15 foot jump shot when it is WIDE OPEN.No one is asking him to take 3 pointers.

    Agreed i think you are dead on with that assessment brother and for a guy that so hardworking I do not think it should be a problem/unreasonable for him to dedicate his summer to doing this.

  50. Z

    Frank:

    I don’t think asking a professional athlete making $14MM/year to practice a jump hook and shoot 15 foot jumpers all offseason is such a chore. Many players have added elements to their game at the age of 29-30. Jordan became a much better jump shooter. KG has also become a much better shooter later in his career.

    I agree. It’s not too much to ask, but I don’t think you really want him to take those shots, once he’s practiced them. It’s not as easy as simply spending a summer taking jump hooks over furniture. Put those 6 months of work into a regular season game and the results tend to be pretty ugly for a while. Kyle Korver once tried to add some moves other than shooting 3s. He spent a whole preseason slashing, posting, and dishing. by game 1 of the regular season he was back to shooting only open 3s because the results of his other moves were painful on the eyes of all that bore witness…

    Chandler would hurt the team if he worked on his offense because he’d feel obliged to use it, which I think would probably hurt the team more than it would help.

  51. outoftowner

    IMO Chandler has a lot of skills on offense aside from being just a dunker. He runs the floor really well, can make a catch in traffic, sets great screens, gets lots of tip outs, and is really smart at moving without the ball. You have to judge him by comparison to other 7 footers, and while most 7 footers are stiffs aside from their height, Chandler provides a lot of added value.

    I agree that low usage and spacing are important issues and if Chandler can develop a mid range jump shot it will help, even if he doesn’t shoot many of them. Its not really that hard for an NBA player to learn to shoot open spot-up 15 footers (basically a free throw from a different angle) so I think its possible for him to learn to do it over the summer.

  52. Z

    Z-man:
    I agree with THCJ in that if it was so easy, more people would do it.On the other hand, if the makeup of his team suggests that he needs to do more than take a small volume of super high-% shots..l

    But wouldn’t some players on the Knicks do better playing more within their abilities? We want some guys to stop doing what they are bad at, while at the same time asking Chandler to do more of what he is bad at?

    The team would probably be better if Amar’e only shot dunks and layups. It would certainly cut down on turnovers… But Chandler does so much more than Amar’e besides the dunks and layups that having Amar’e only do that would make him even more wredundant.

    Let’s not lame Chandler for the other players’ shortcomings.

  53. Glew

    I would also add that while he saves a lot of possessions by slapping the ball out to someone on the perimeter perhaps sometimes he should just grab the ball and put it back. Yes his efficiency might drop but it seems like many other big men get points this way and it enables teams to stay in the game during close defensive type matches

  54. Frank

    Btw according to hoopdata, Chandler shot just about one 16-23 foot jump shot per 36 min in 2010-11 and shot 48% from there. That’s pretty darn good. And not THAT small a sample size.

  55. nicos

    The Honorable Cock Jowles:
    So because Chandler can’t hit a jump shot, he doesn’t “create space” for his teammates by being a ridiculously good PnR roller?

    I don’t understand how some players are valued for being so good at a particular type of offensive play that they “demand” attention from the other team, yet a player as good as Chandler would just receive the “I don’t know, he probably has no impact on a team’s gameplan” treatment.

    Pick a side.

    You know who averaged more ppp as the roll man than Chandler this year? Amar’e- 1.22 to 1.18. And he barely ran it with Lin (the Knicks best pnr guard) at all- most of his success was with Fields and Davis. I would guess that the guards ppp in the pnr would be higher with Chandler as he sets better screens (though it might be off-set by more turnovers as there were a ton of turnovers committed by guards trying to force the ball into Chandler). It’d be really interesting to see a break down of total ppp of both the roller and ball handler in pnr’s involving Amar’e and Chandler.

  56. jon abbey

    Z-man: While I wouldn’t give him a “5? I do think that he was very valuable on both ends.If tip-outs are an offensive stat (and the statistical def of “possession” says that it is, then he was very valuable in that area.He also gives a good PG excellent angles for P&R passes and finishes, which draws attention away from the ball-handler and outlet guys.He’s a huge presence around the basket that has to be accounted for.Overall, he is a hugely valuable player, but like many others, he can’t carry a team’s offensive load.He can, however, make other guys better on offense with his efficiency and intangibles. I would have to agree with THCJ in that he is definitely not the problem for us. Because of the PG problem on our team, his limitations are seen as liabilities, but it’s really not his fault.You don’t lament that the guy paid to be the PG doesn’t block more shots just because the team has a terrible defensive center.

    he didn’t really start tipping the ball out on rebounds until midway through the season (I saw him do this so much in previous seasons that I was really conscious of it, and wondered why he wasn’t doing it more early on), and I disagree that his presence needs to be accounted for on offense. I’m not even really sure how someone who watched the Knicks this year could come to that conclusion, but maybe that’s just me.

    I do think he’d be helped greatly by a real PG, like pretty much everyone else on our team.

  57. KnickfaninNJ

    Reading today’s blog I get the impression some are saying that if a player, in this case Chandler acquired better offensive skills the team would worse offensively. I think this is basically voodoo statistics.

    Used when needed a new offensive skill has to help the team. It can only hurt If you assume that Chandler will use the new skill in preference to stuff he does better (basically no one does that) or in preference to stuff other people do better, which is also unlikely given how smart a basketball player he is.

  58. ruruland

    KnickfaninNJ:
    Reading today’s blog I get the impression some are saying that if a player, in this case Chandler acquired better offensive skills the team would worse offensively.I think this is basically voodoo statistics.

    Used when needed a new offensive skill has to help the team. It can only hurt If you assume that Chandler will use the new skill in preference to stuff he does better (basically no one does that) or in preference to stuff other people do better, which is also unlikely given how smart a basketball player he is.

    voodoo statistics. Yep, using that moving forward. It’s a perfect analogy too. basically that is fundamentally the underlying assumption.

  59. ruruland

    outoftowner:
    IMO Chandler has a lot of skills on offense aside from being just a dunker.He runs the floor really well, can make a catch in traffic, sets great screens, gets lots of tip outs, and is really smart at moving without the ball.You have to judge him by comparison to other 7 footers, and while most 7 footers are stiffs aside from their height, Chandler provides a lot of added value.

    If you look at the long-term adjusted plus minus, he’s been a nuetral player for the most part (and it’s tough to read given how often he played with a dominant, attention getting offensive player in his career)…..

    Really don’t need to add much.

    If football were to come up with advanced metrics for skill players that focused on just the end point result — short-distance runners or goal line runners would be the Tyson Chandlers of their sport.

    if we focused on how baskets are scored or not scored throughout a game, and compare them to how a team moves the ball on offense through a game or drive……

    THCJ is trolling hard dude.

  60. llcoolbp

    Nice piece on Chndler. I’m just excited to have this guy with a full training camp. Hopefully, he will further put his defensive mindset and work ethic imprint on this team.

    Just wanted to post something FRANK wrote in yesterday’s thread that perfectly sums up how I feel about the heat. I play a lot of pick up ball and love when there is a competitive game. I hate when the teams are purposely created to dominate and humiliate opponents. Something about that triggers a very deep feeling of anger and hatred in me. Here is what Frank said for those of you who missed it:

    “My hate of Miami runs deep – I’m not sure why, but maybe it’s an anti-bully thing. It really is like all the best players on the winners-stay-on-the-court pickup game all decided to play together. Their playing together wasn’t done in competitive spirit – they decided to play together because they thought it would be the easiest thing to do. Thumbs down from me, and I’ll root for the underdog against them every time.”

  61. ruruland

    Z: I agree. It’s not too much to ask, but I don’t think you really want him to take those shots, once he’s practiced them. It’s not as easy as simply spending a summer taking jump hooks over furniture. Put those 6 months of work into a regular season game and the results tend to be pretty ugly for a while. Kyle Korver once tried to add some moves other than shooting 3s. He spent a whole preseason slashing, posting, and dishing. by game 1 of the regular season he was back to shooting only open 3s because the results of his other moves were painful on the eyes of all that bore witness…

    Chandler would hurt the team if he worked on his offense because he’d feel obliged to use it, which I think would probably hurt the team more than it would help.

    Well, I’ll say this. It hurt a lot when Lin went down and the Knicks couldn’t take advantage of Miami’s biggest weakness.

    Hibbert was a lot better against Miami than Chandler was, and was the single biggest reason they were more competitive.

    It’s okay to have a non-threat offensive player if you have 3-4 other capable, versatile offensive threats …. like Boston of 2008 with Perkins, the kinds of 4/5s that played alongside Duncan,….etc al.

    Every team except Miami has an center that is capable of occasionaly making an open jump shot or post move– Perkins and Ibaka in OKC. Bass and KG.. The vast majority of conference Finals teams the last 20 years have had at least a semblance of a threat inside.

    Dallas never had another non-threat offensive player alongside Chandler. Detroit never played Wallace with another non-threat forward.

  62. ruruland

    When you’re only playing with 4 guys that can threaten the defense with the ball, the defense only has to respect 4 players (pick and roll aside), offense gets much more difficult. Not just because of how the defense reacts, but because said offensive player does not improve the offensive situation of whomever he passes the ball to.

  63. outoftowner

    ruruland: If you look at the long-term adjusted plus minus, he’s been a nuetral player for the most part (and it’s tough to read given how often he played with a dominant, attention getting offensive player in his career)…..

    These are his on-court off-court splits, in terms of team pts/100:

    2007-2008 NOH: +7
    2008-2009 NOH: +7
    2009-2010 CHA: -5
    2010-2011 DAL: +3
    2011-2012 NYK: -1.5

    Chandler can be a weapon offensively if you have a playmaker who can get him the ball. His only negative years were when he played with Raymond Felton (subpar PG) and the disaster we had at PG most of this year.

    Also notable is how much Chris Paul’s +/- numbers fell off when Tyson Chandler left NOH, and how they recovered this year when he got Blake Griffin to play with. It works both ways. I don’t think Linsanity would have happened without Tyson Chandler for Lin to pass to.

  64. Z-man

    The Honorable Cock Jowles: .Pick a side.

    I don’t think it’s that simple, especially in playoff basketball. I agree that Chandler is a very valuable player, but I disagree that he is a “great” offensive player. I think being able to score relatively efficiently in a number of ways trumps being able to score super-efficiently in a very limited amount of ways. I feel that individual TS% relative to usage has to be considered in the context of the team.

  65. SeeWhyDee77

    OK..u ready 4 another “understatement of the year” candidate? Chandler is hands down the team’s MVP. Normally u would say WTF to that rite? 11.3 ppg 9.9 rpg an 1.4 bpg…thas not team MVP numbers..especially from a big man they say. But Tyson left his mark on the squad, no doubt. Moreso than our top 2 players. The only player on the team that had an effect close to Tyson is Jeremy Lin. Now..should we be worried that we have 2 world class scorers and perennial all stars who didn’t leave as big a mark as Tyson? Is that an indictment on Stat and Melo or more a testament to what Tyson brings to the team? I choose the latter because we faltered..or rather had a huge drop off when Tyson couldn’t play. Without Stat and Melo we found a way. I think Chandler served notice in a big way that this team needs to play harder..especially on defense. And that to me was the best thing he’s done so far in a Knick uni

  66. jon abbey

    Tony Parker is just unstoppable this season, he should have been first team All-NBA.

  67. d-mar

    jon abbey:
    Tony Parker is just unstoppable this season, he should have been first team All-NBA.

    16-21 FG from the PG position, are you kidding me? The man is the best PG in the NBA, I don’t think there can be any argument.

  68. johnlocke

    Parker is nasty lol…Lins ceiling for sure. We should give Neal a hard look. Westbrooke is just not a PG…. You have the MVP runner up on your team and you keep jacking up contested shots and passing as the fourth option? Turrible

    d-mar: 16-21 FG from the PG position, are you kidding me? The man is the best PG in the NBA, I don’t think there can be any argument.

  69. Z-man

    Yeah, this Spurs team is unbelievable. I was mesmerized by their team passing in the second quarter, and by how good Parker is. Don’t know whether I’m ready to put them up there with the all-time great teams, but they could have played with anybody. Duncan is so under the radar, but damn, the guy is just ageless.

  70. Nick C.

    Z-man: BTW, Blair can’t get off the bench, how can Pop do that to an all-time great? :)

    Tiago Splitter is an all time even greater?

  71. TelegraphedPass

    d-mar: 16-21 FG from the PG position, are you kidding me? The man is the best PG in the NBA, I don’t think there can be any argument.

    Stop. Now. This is getting absurd. It’s starting to become a trend to unseat Chris Paul every time another PG does well. Rose spent some time as the favorite, Deron Williams used to get some love, and now Tony Parker. Honestly, it’s difficult to find even one aspect of basketball in which Parker surpasses CP3.

    Let’s begin with scoring. This season, Tony Parker posted an impressive PPP of .94. He was a really good scorer, but unfortunately falls significantly short of Chris Paul’s unreal PPP of 1. Tony’s TS% of .539 also pales in comparison to CP’s .581. Paul shoots better from every part of the floor except for at the rim, and CP is assisted less often.

    On defense, Chris Paul is better than Tony Parker and it isn’t close. Parker surrenders .05 more PPP on defense than the Point God. Chris Paul forces more turnovers and a better defensive rebounder.

    In fact, Chris Paul is just a better rebounder than Parker.

    Do I need to make a case for Chris Paul being a better passer than Parker? That’s obvious at this point, right?

    Despite being a significantly more skilled and prolific passer, Chris turns the ball over less often than Tony.

    Have I missed something that matters in organized basketball?

    Chris Paul is arguably the most skilled and complete pure point guard in NBA history. Tony is talented and underrated, but can we stop jumping to crown a new best PG every time a team has a great season.

  72. Caleb

    This is kind of a bizarre discussion on Chandler. Offensive juggernaut? Hurts the offense? C’mon guys…

    A 4 on offense sounds reasonable.

    And I know I said I’d ignore this stuff, but Ibaka a better defender than Chandler?

    For anyone who missed it, the Knicks went from the worst defense in the league, to #5 – the roster changes were swapping PGs (not in a better direction on defense), adding Steve Novak and JR Smith, and adding Tyson Chandler.

  73. nicos

    Caleb:
    This is kind of a bizarre discussion on Chandler. Offensive juggernaut? Hurts the offense? C’mon guys…

    A 4 on offense sounds reasonable.

    And I know I said I’d ignore this stuff, but Ibaka a better defender than Chandler?

    For anyone who missed it, the Knicks went from the worst defense in the league, to #5 – the roster changes were swapping PGs (not in a better direction on defense), adding Steve Novak and JR Smith, and adding Tyson Chandler.

    Poor Shump, forgotten already. While Chandler does deserve a lot of the credit, having Shumpert- a terrific on the ball defender who could guard all three perimeter positions really helped too.

  74. jon abbey

    TelegraphedPass: Stop. Now. This is getting absurd. It’s starting to become a trend to unseat Chris Paul every time another PG does well. Rose spent some time as the favorite, Deron Williams used to get some love, and now Tony Parker. Honestly, it’s difficult to find even one aspect of basketball in which Parker surpasses CP3.

    Let’s begin with scoring. This season, Tony Parker posted an impressive PPP of .94. He was a really good scorer, but unfortunately falls significantly short of Chris Paul’s unreal PPP of 1. Tony’s TS% of .539 also pales in comparison to CP’s .581. Paul shoots better from every part of the floor except for at the rim, and CP is assisted less often.

    On defense, Chris Paul is better than Tony Parker and it isn’t close. Parker surrenders .05 more PPP on defense than the Point God. Chris Paul forces more turnovers and a better defensive rebounder.

    In fact, Chris Paul is just a better rebounder than Parker.

    Do I need to make a case for Chris Paul being a better passer than Parker? That’s obvious at this point, right?

    Despite being a significantly more skilled and prolific passer, Chris turns the ball over less often than Tony.

    Have I missed something that matters in organized basketball?

    Chris Paul is arguably the most skilled and complete pure point guard in NBA history. Tony is talented and underrated, but can we stop jumping to crown a new best PG every time a team has a great season.

    Chris Paul is overrated via analyses like this, he takes off long stretches of games then tries to turn it on down the stretch. he often pulls it off, but for 2011-2012, Tony Parker was and is a better player in my minority opinion.

    I also think I prefer Rondo to Paul, but that’s more arguable.

  75. TelegraphedPass

    jon abbey: Chris Paul is overrated via analyses like this, he takes off long stretches of games then tries to turn it on down the stretch. he often pulls it off, but for 2011-2012, Tony Parker was and is a better player in my minority opinion. I also think I prefer Rondo to Paul, but that’s more arguable.

    He takes it off and turns it on? These numbers reflect averages from his entire season. How does this overrate Chris Paul?

  76. jon abbey

    also I think it’s possible that Derrick Rose and/or Deron Williams are better than Paul, but it’s hard to make a case for either of them right now.

    regular season stats are great and all, but the postseason is what matters, and Paul has still only won two series in his career.

  77. jon abbey

    TelegraphedPass: He takes it off and turns it on? These numbers reflect averages from his entire season. How does this overrate Chris Paul?

    I don’t like players who play hard in stretches and take off other stretches (in a game, not over the course of the season). Pierce used to do this too pre-Garnett, I think it makes one’s numbers look better than their contribution actually is.

  78. jon abbey

    but you don’t need to argue with me, almost everyone agrees with you and you’re not going to convince me.

  79. The Honorable Cock Jowles

    TelegraphedPass: He takes it off and turns it on? These numbers reflect averages from his entire season. How does this overrate Chris Paul?

    Don’t bother arguing with Abbey. He sees things and they become truth. He’s dead wrong about Chris Paul, and no amount of objective, hard evidence is going to change his mind.

    I posted turnover/steal numbers for the top PGs in the league a few weeks back and Paul is so clearly the best in terms of net possessions it’s not funny. To counter that he “turns it off” for long stretches would seem to fly in the face of the objective truth that he has the highest steal AND lowest turnover percentage in the league, but jon abbey’s eyes are right and the data are misleading.

    You might as well talk to the wall, man.

  80. The Honorable Cock Jowles

    jon abbey: I don’t like players who play hard in stretches and take off other stretches (in a game, not over the course of the season). Pierce used to do this too pre-Garnett, I think it makes one’s numbers look better than their contribution actually is.

    There is not one bit of logic or reason in this paragraph. How can a player with Paul’s numbers “turn it off?”

  81. TelegraphedPass

    jon abbey: also I think it’s possible that Derrick Rose and/or Deron Williams are better than Paul, but it’s hard to make a case for either of them right now. regular season stats are great and all, but the postseason is what matters, and Paul has still only won two series in his career.

    So ringzzz?

    SERIEZZZZZZ

    I hate that line of thinking. It’s just so driven by narrative.

    And Chris Paul’s career postseason WS/48 is almost double Parker’s, his career postseason PER is almost 10 points higher, and his box score stats support that.

    It’s kind of ridiculous to use Tony’s great postseason success as a feather in his cap when he played alongside Hall of Famer’s Manu Ginobili and Tim freaking Duncan while Chris Paul went to war with David West, Carl Landry (due to West’s injury), and Marco Bellinelli.

    Come on.

  82. TelegraphedPass

    jon abbey: but you don’t need to argue with me, almost everyone agrees with you and you’re not going to convince me.

    I’m just trying to understand what you see when Chris Paul plays. I’m amazed every time at his brilliance. I love Parker too, but Chris Paul is an alien.

    The argument you use in favor of several PGs over Paul sounds like what everyone tries to say about LeBron James, and that also makes no sense to me.

  83. 2FOR18

    Paul is kind of famous for pacing himself during games per Simmons, but even if he does, I can’t see how anyone can name 1 thing Tony Parker is better at basketball-wise than Paul. Paul even has swag, so I have no idea what Jon Abbey is seeing:)

  84. jon abbey

    Parker wasn’t better than Paul before this season, and he might not be better after this season. but he’s the main reason that the Spurs are on this ridiculous roll, he’s been their best player all season, and they did just finish abusively sweeping Paul’s team.

    and yeah, Paul has swag, I don’t dislike him, but I have argued for a while that he’s a bit overrated, somewhere between 6th-20th best player in the league as opposed to top 5.

  85. jon abbey

    2FOR18:
    Paul is kind of famous for pacing himself during games per Simmons, but even if he does, I can’t see how anyone can name 1 thing Tony Parker is better at basketball-wise than Paul.Paul even has swag, so I have no idea what Jon Abbey is seeing:)

    if everyone and their uncle knows that your star will coast through most of the first three quarters (and Paul did this numerous times this year), it puts much more pressure on the rest of the team to deliver during that time. your star should be equally dangerous in the mind of the opposition whenever he’s on the court, at least to my way of thinking. it’s great to be a closer and I’m all for that, but not at the expense of taking off long stretches beforehand.

  86. TelegraphedPass

    jon abbey: if everyone and their uncle knows that your star will coast through most of the first three quarters (and Paul did this numerous times this year), it puts much more pressure on the rest of the team to deliver during that time. your star should be equally dangerous in the mind of the opposition whenever he’s on the court, at least to my way of thinking. it’s great to be a closer and I’m all for that, but not at the expense of taking off long stretches beforehand.

    I just don’t see the evidence that he takes 3 quarters off. That makes about as much sense as saying LeBron fails in the 4th quarter. CP3′s shooting this year was consistent through all four quarters. It isn’t as if he scores less or less efficiently until the fourth.

    Do you have any evidence at all other than Simmons’ assertion that Chris Paul coasts through quarters? There are more reliable sources than Bill Simmons.

  87. TelegraphedPass

    The Spurs were the 1 seed in the West last year, too. Tony Parker isn’t the sole reason they’re doing well: They have a healthy Manu Ginobili and dropped Richard Jefferson for Kawhi Leonard. It’s not like Tony made a huge leap over last season.

  88. jon abbey

    TelegraphedPass: I just don’t see the evidence that he takes 3 quarters off. That makes about as much sense as saying LeBron fails in the 4th quarter. CP3?s shooting this year was consistent through all four quarters. It isn’t as if he scores less or less efficiently until the fourth.

    Do you have any evidence at all other than Simmons’ assertion that Chris Paul coasts through quarters? There are more reliable sources than Bill Simmons.

    heh, yeah, I’ve seen it myself numerous times, and I was saying this before Simmons was. and stop throwing LeBron in the mix, that just confuses things.

    and TP: wrong, Parker has certainly made a decided leap and has had the best season of his career this year.

    it’s funny how stats can blind people to what’s actually happening.

  89. TelegraphedPass

    jon abbey: heh, yeah, I’ve seen it myself numerous times, and I was saying this before Simmons was. and stop throwing LeBron in the mix, that just confuses things. and TP: wrong, Parker has certainly made a decided leap and has had the best season of his career this year. it’s funny how stats can blind people to what’s actually happening.

    I bring up LeBron because that’s exactly what it sounds like.

    “I don’t care what LeBron’s 4th quarter stats say: I know what I see!”

    “I don’t care what Chris Paul’s stats say: I know what I see and he’s overrated!”

    I’m perplexed. What leap has Tony made? How are you so sure that it’s Tony that’s improved and not the system, of which he is the offensive focal point?

    I agree stats can be misleading, but that is due to them either being presented wrong or incorrectly recorded. Do you really believe that to be the case with these two? That despite their measured production, Tony is a more efficient scorer or defender? Or that he is a better passer or rebounder or anything?

  90. jon abbey

    again, bringing up LeBron just confuses things even further, really unnecessary. I get your point, but I don’t make that argument myself, so it’s silly in this context.

    what leap has Parker made? he’s playing the same game he always has, but he’s better at it, and the team is finally his as opposed to Duncan’s. no system works in the NBA without a superior talent (or multiple superior talents) driving it, and Parker is the guy driving this team right now.

    and yeah, I think his stats are misleading. for instance, he only played 30+ minutes in 4 of the last 13 games because Pop was resting him for the playoffs, averaging around 23 minutes per game. that’s 20 percent of the season right there.

  91. TelegraphedPass

    jon abbey: and yeah, I think his stats are misleading. for instance, he only played 30+ minutes in 4 of the last 13 games because Pop was resting him for the playoffs, averaging around 23 minutes per game. that’s 20 percent of the season right there.

    But that only affects totals and per game stats. That doesn’t change his efficiency.

  92. Z

    jon abbey: if everyone and their uncle knows that your star will coast through most of the first three quarters (and Paul did this numerous times this year), it puts much more pressure on the rest of the team to deliver during that time. your star should be equally dangerous in the mind of the opposition whenever he’s on the court, at least to my way of thinking. it’s great to be a closer and I’m all for that, but not at the expense of taking off long stretches beforehand.

    jon– aren’t you one of the folks here who believes that the 4th quarter is more important than the 1st 3 quarters? (I know you believe teams play with more intensity in the playoffs than in the regular season).

    I agree, Paul does coast (at least he did in the game I went to this year– I barely noticed he was out there until the 4th, then looked up at the jumbotron and saw he had 10 assists. Then he proceeded to dominate the last 8 minutes). The fact that Chris Paul coasting is as productive as Rondo going all out may say something about his skill, and the fact that he saves himself for “winning time” may say even more about his smarts.

  93. jon abbey

    Z: jon– aren’t you one of the folks here who believes that the 4th quarter is more important than the 1st 3 quarters? (I know you believe teams play with more intensity in the playoffs than in the regular season).

    I agree, Paul does coast (at least he did in the game I went to this year– I barely noticed he was out there until the 4th, then looked up at the jumbotron and saw he had 10 assists. Then he proceeded to dominate the last 8 minutes). The fact that Chris Paul coasting is as productive as Rondo going all out may say something about his skill, and the fact that he saves himself for “winning time” may say even more about his smarts.

    yes, this is all true, and he does pull it off quite a bit of the time. I just think he takes it too far to the extreme for my taste to be considered quite as good as he is.

    and are there people who don’t “believe teams play with more intensity in the playoffs than in the regular season”? because that’s just truth, I didn’t realize anyone disagreed with that.

  94. Frank

    RE: this Parker-CP3 thing –

    The Spurs offense has gone 15th–>13th–>9th–>2nd–>1st in the last 5 seasons in terms of offensive efficiency. The offense has gone from more of a Tim Duncan-centered offense to a Tony Parker controlled offense during that time, and the results show. This is one instance in which I couldn’t care less what Tony Parker’s assists numbers or TS% is when assessing his value. In an offense which Pop has already says is D’Antoni-like – centered around the PG – the entire team’s efficiency has gotten better the more the PG controls the game. As we saw last night, Parker had only 8 out of the 27 assists SA had last night, but there is no doubt that his dribble penetration and ability to make the right pass at the right time led to either a score or 1-2 more passes that led to a wide open high-efficiency shot (ie. the hockey assist or even the pass that leads to the hockey assist).

    I’m sure there are teams out there with stats like this, but I would wager that Parker is either directly (by scoring or getting an assist) or indirectly (by getting the defense in a bad position and starting a chain reaction of defensive scrambling) responsible for 75% of SA’s points when he is on the floor. Like Lebron, he puts such stress on a defense that the game truly gets easier for everyone else.

    So even though Parker’s personal efficiency (ie. TS%) has not really increased, his TEAM’s efficiency has gotten MUCH better — which is really what a PG is supposed to do, right? Get everyone else easier shots.
    .

  95. jon abbey

    and it is interesting to read Simmons on Paul, especially since he attended most of his home games this year (written in early April):

    “After he checked out this year’s brutally unforgiving schedule, I believe that Chris made an executive decision that he’d be better off cruising in second or third gear for the majority of games, then shifting up to fifth gear in crunch time.”

    “Come playoff time? That switch will be flicked to “on.”"

    OK, but now we know that it wasn’t, because of injury or whatever.

    http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7770130/handicapping-nba-mvp-race

  96. The Honorable Cock Jowles

    Frank:
    RE: this Parker-CP3 thing –

    The Spurs offense has gone 15th–>13th–>9th–>2nd–>1st in the last 5 seasons in terms of offensive efficiency.The offense has gone from more of a Tim Duncan-centered offense to a Tony Parker controlled offense during that time, and the results show.This is one instance in which I couldn’t care less what Tony Parker’s assists numbers or TS% is when assessing his value.In an offense which Pop has already says is D’Antoni-like – centered around the PG –the entire team’s efficiency has gotten better the more the PG controls the game. As we saw last night, Parker had only 8 out of the 27 assists SA had last night, but there is no doubt that his dribble penetration and ability to make the right pass at the right time led to either a score or 1-2 more passes that led to a wide open high-efficiency shot (ie. the hockey assist or even the pass that leads to the hockey assist).

    I’m sure there are teams out there with stats like this, but I would wager that Parker is either directly (by scoring or getting an assist) or indirectly (by getting the defense in a bad position and starting a chain reaction of defensive scrambling) responsible for 75% of SA’s points when he is on the floor.Like Lebron, he puts such stress on a defense that the game truly gets easier for everyone else.

    So even though Parker’s personal efficiency (ie. TS%) has not really increased, his TEAM’s efficiency has gotten MUCH better — which is really what a PG is supposed to do, right? Get everyone else easier shots.
    .

    http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/p/parketo01.html

    You can look up his usage and see that he has not, in fact, become the “center” of SA’s offense. His assist and usage rates have been about career average. You can think whatever you want from your limited subjective perspective, but when it comes to your…

  97. The Honorable Cock Jowles

    jon abbey:
    it’s funny how stats can blind people to what’s actually happening.

    Do you not see the irony, here?

  98. Frank

    The Honorable Cock Jowles: http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/p/parketo01.html

    You can look up his usage and see that he has not, in fact, become the “center” of SA’s offense. His assist and usage rates have been about career average. You can think whatever you want from your limited subjective perspective, but when it comes to your…

    So THCJ –

    how many possessions does a hockey assist use? ZERO.

    How much does your usage go up if you break down the defense, pass to to an open man who has a defender run out on him, enabling another pass to an open guy for a layup? ZERO

    how many assists do you pile up when you start a train of passes that leads to a wide open 3 (ie. the entire 3rd quarter last night) – ZERO.

    Box score stats SUCK dude. “Advanced stats” derived from box score stats are prehistoric. They tell 90% of the story in some situations, and 5% in others.

    continued in next post…

  99. jon abbey

    Frank: So THCJ –

    how many possessions does a hockey assist use? ZERO.

    How much does your usage go up if you break down the defense, pass to to an open man who has a defender run out on him, enabling another pass to an open guy for a layup? ZERO

    how many assists do you pile up when you start a train of passes that leads to a wide open 3 (ie. the entire 3rd quarter last night) – ZERO.

    Box score stats SUCK dude.“Advanced stats” derived from box score stats are prehistoric. They tell 90% of the story in some situations, and 5% in others.

    continued in next post…

    THANK YOU
    THANK YOU
    THANK YOU

    keep preaching, my brother, not that a bozo like THCJ will ever hear you.

  100. jon abbey

    and it’s even more extreme than that, by the way. there are cases where missing a shot helps the team, for instance if it’s a drive that draws the defense and gives your team an easy putback. this has the same exact effect on the game as a successful drive, but is a negative instead of a positive in the stats that too many people accept at face value.

  101. Frank

    A nugget from TrueHoop regarding Parker:

    “At one point he caught the ball for a wide open 3, but dribbled in a step to commit the double stat geek efficiency sins of a) opting for the almost-as-hard-but-not-nearly-as-rewarding long 2 and b) turning a catch-and-shoot opportunity into one off the dribble.

    Why does this work? Why can Parker, unlike so many other NBA players, be the efficient high-volume scorer who takes over a big playoff game while dining almost exclusively on inefficient shots?

    It’s an open question. Perhaps, given the same looks again, he’d normally miss many more.

    Or maybe it has a lot to do with the fact that he’s open for just about all of them. Sure it’s off the dribble. Sure it’s a long 2. Sure those shots are created like tough shots are created. But if the guy who’s supposed to be bothering his shot, typically Russell Westbrook, is a yard behind the play wrestling with Tim Duncan … well, that’s a wide open shot. And that’s a great shot, even if it’s not as exciting as a twisting layup in traffic.”

    Is a layup always a good shot? Shot charts would tell you yes. But not when you’re Charles Smith trying to get a layup over 3 Bulls. Is a 3 pointer always a high-efficiency shot for a 40% shooter? Shot charts would tell you yes. But not if the defender is right on you.

    Tony Parker probably shoots 60% on wide open mid- to long-range jumpers, but as the quote says, taking that shot would be considered a “bad” shot by “advanced stats”.

    All layups and 3 pointers are not created equally. All mid-long range 2′s are not created equally. These are things that box scores or even hoopdata shot locations don’t see.

    These are things that Sportvu sees, and that real advanced stat people know.

  102. TelegraphedPass

    The Clippers just finished their most successful season ever by winning percentage. It’s not as if Paul isn’t making his team hugely better as well.

    With Tony Parker off the court, the Spurs are +5 in plus/minus. With him on the court, they are +13.5. Which is awesome.

    With Chris Paul off the court, the Clippers are -7.5. With him on the court, they leap up to +7.2. Chris Paul instantly became the best and most productive player on that roster and is probably the only reason they even made the playoffs.

    You have offered no proof that the Spurs’ success hasn’t come from their refined offensive system. The jump in offensive efficiency is insightful, but not indicative of Parker’s personal performance. You’re really reaching here.

    Basically, you’re saying that when it comes to Tony Parker you shouldn’t use the box score to determine his production because it’s misleading. Ok, so do we have any evidence that the Spurs can’t go without him? Anything that says this leap isn’t due to their constant acquisition of valuable, efficient roleplayers?

  103. Frank

    jon abbey:
    and it’s even more extreme than that, by the way. there are cases where missing a shot helps the team, for instance if it’s a drive that draws the defense and gives your team an easy putback. this has the same exact effect on the game as a successful drive, but is a negative instead of a positive in the stats that too many people accept at face value.

    Makes you wonder how great guys like Noah would look from “Advanced stats” if Rose wasn’t always there to draw defenders, giving Noah great offensive rebounding position (+++WoW) and an easy putback (+++++WoW). But of course Rose is the problem because his TS was only 53.2 this year on a usage of 30.5 = chucker.

  104. Frank

    TelegraphedPass:
    The Clippers just finished their most successful season ever by winning percentage. It’s not as if Paul isn’t making his team hugely better as well.

    With Tony Parker off the court, the Spurs are +5 in plus/minus. With him on the court, they are +13.5. Which is awesome.

    With Chris Paul off the court, the Clippers are -7.5. With him on the court, they leap up to +7.2. Chris Paul instantly became the best and most productive player on that roster and is probably the only reason they even made the playoffs.

    You have offered no proof that the Spurs’ success hasn’t come from their refined offensive system. The jump in offensive efficiency is insightful, but not indicative of Parker’s personal performance. You’re really reaching here.

    Basically, you’re saying that when it comes to Tony Parker you shouldn’t use the box score to determine his production because it’s misleading. Ok, so do we have any evidence that the Spurs can’t go without him? Anything that says this leap isn’t due to their constant acquisition of valuable, efficient roleplayers?

    Well, you just partially answered it yourself – they are a net +8.5 when he is on the court. That’s pretty good.

  105. jon abbey

    TelegraphedPass:

    Basically, you’re saying that when it comes to Tony Parker you shouldn’t use the box score to determine his production because it’s misleading.

    actually I’m saying we shouldn’t ever use box scores to determine virtually anything, as there’s so much noise in there that the numbers become largely meaningless.

  106. TelegraphedPass

    Frank: Well, you just partially answered it yourself – they are a net +8.5 when he is on the court. That’s pretty good.

    And Chris Paul is a net 14.8.

  107. Frank

    You know what’s interesting about this part of the truehoop quote?

    Frank: At one point he caught the ball for a wide open 3, but dribbled in a step to commit the double stat geek efficiency sins of a) opting for the almost-as-hard-but-not-nearly-as-rewarding long 2 and b) turning a catch-and-shoot opportunity into one off the dribble.

    The same people that would tell you that taking 1 step in to take a long 2 is a horrible thing to do are the same people that will tell you that the corner 3 is one of the most efficient shots in basketball. Why is the corner 3 so much better? Because it’s a couple feet closer. Obviously JR taking step-back 22 footers is a bad idea, but if you know your range is to 2 feet in front of the 3 point line, how is it a bad idea to step away from your defender into an open shot from a location that you’re more comfortable shooting from?

  108. Frank

    TelegraphedPass: And Chris Paul is a net 14.8.

    LOL agreed.

    It’s sort of the like the Phil Jackson theory of coaching greatness. Maybe Parker having the ball all the time catapults what would already been a very good offense into an elite unstoppable offense, just like the Zen Master specialized in turning second round playoff teams into champions.

    It’ll always be very difficult to separate the greatness of a system from the greatness of a player, especially in this case because Parker has played in SA with Duncan his whole career, and because the system is Popovitch vs. Vinny Del Negro.

    Look, they’re both awesome. I don’t know what to say. I’d be happy to have either of them in blue-and-orange.

  109. Frank

    by the way, the math answer to my question above is easy – since the reward for making a 3 is 50% greater than making a 2, the player needs to shoot 50% better from long (open) 2 than he does from (contested) 3 point range – ie. > 60% from long open 2 vs. <40% from contested 3.

  110. TelegraphedPass

    jon abbey: actually I’m saying we shouldn’t ever use box scores to determine virtually anything, as there’s so much noise in there that the numbers become largely meaningless.

    I disagree, but I see your point. To the examples you and Frank have stated, the benefit in certain situations shouldn’t be credited to Tony necessarily. Like, it’s awesome that Tony can afford to miss a shot because Pop’s system puts Duncan in great position to clean up the glass but it speaks more to Timmy and Pop than Parker. Same with Joakim Noah and Rose.

    Parker is put in a situation where his talents shine, but that doesn’t make him a better player than Chris Paul or more valuable.

  111. ephus

    Frank: by the way, the math answer to my question above is easy – since the reward for making a 3 is 50% greater than making a 2, the player needs to shoot 50% better from long (open) 2 than he does from (contested) 3 point range – ie. > 60% from long open 2 vs. <40% from contested 3.

    Not so easy, because of the following two factors:

    1. Foul shots generated. Getting fouled on a contested 3 is one of the most productive things on offense. For a while two years ago, Gallinari had a knack for getting fouled on the close-out. When a player steps into the long 2 to avoid the close out, he virtually guarantees he will not be going to the line.

    2. Offensive rebounds generated. The offensive rebounding rates on 3 pt shots are consistently higher than on long 2s.

    For a ball park estimate, I am comfortable with saying that the player needs to shoot 50% better from 2 than from 3 in order to make it sensible to step in from behind the arc. But I have feeling that the real number is even higher.

  112. Frank

    ephus: Not so easy, because of the following two factors:

    1.Foul shots generated.Getting fouled on a contested 3 is one of the most productive things on offense.For a while two years ago, Gallinari had a knack for getting fouled on the close-out.When a player steps into the long 2 to avoid the close out, he virtually guarantees he will not be going to the line.

    2.Offensive rebounds generated.The offensive rebounding rates on 3 pt shots are consistently higher than on long 2s.

    For a ball park estimate, I am comfortable with saying that the player needs to shoot 50% better from 2 than from 3 in order to make it sensible to step in from behind the arc.But I have feeling that the real number is even higher.

    good points. I’m pretty sure Popovich, Carlisle, McHale (Morey), SVG, Spoelstra, Doc Rivers, and the other enlightened coaches in the NBA know these numbers. Hopefully Woodson is one of these guys too.

    Wait- no way – Gallinari had a knack for showing contact? LOL.
    I serioulsy wonder how Gallo will do in a new anti-flopping NBA. If the commish sees flopping as a problem (and he does), I am sure it will be addressed in the offseason with the refs.

  113. 2FOR18

    jon abbey: actually I’m saying we shouldn’t ever use box scores to determine virtually anything, as there’s so much noise in there that the numbers become largely meaningless.

    Can you list one basketball skill that Parker is better at than Paul? I appreciate how you’re not a slave to the stats, so forget stats, but give me something tangible here.

  114. jon abbey

    2FOR18: Can you list one basketball skill that Parker is better at than Paul?I appreciate how you’re not a slave to the stats, so forget stats, but give me something tangible here.

    admittedly this is hard. I don’t think I’ve ever seen Paul run it down the teeth of the opposing team time and again like Parker did last night, especially not a team as young and athletic and desperate as OKC.

    but it’s not a question of fundamental skills, Paul clearly has all of those in abundance. it’s more that I think there’s something very slightly lacking in terms of his knowledge of how to best maximize those talents to win games, or pacing himself over the course of the season to be at his best in May and June, or something. Parker is obviously lucky to have Popovich and Duncan and Ginobili, and it’s always hard to totally disentangle a player from his situation.

    not a great answer, but short of Paul and Parker switching teams for next season, that’s the best I can do.

  115. 2FOR18

    jon abbey: admittedly this is hard. I don’t think I’ve ever seen Paul run it down the teeth of the opposing team time and again like Parker did last night, especially not a team as young and athletic and desperate as OKC.

    but it’s not a question of fundamental skills, Paul clearly has all of those in abundance. it’s more that I think there’s something very slightly lacking in terms of his knowledge of how to best maximize those talents to win games, or pacing himself over the course of the season to be at his best in May and June, or something. Parker is obviously lucky to have Popovich and Duncan and Ginobili, and it’s always hard to totally disentangle a player from his situation.

    not a great answer, but short of Paul and Parker switching teams for next season, that’s the best I can do.

    That’s cool. I think you feel that Parker has “it”, that quality that can’t be defined or quantified.

  116. jon abbey

    (here’s my periodic whine about how I still really wish we had ongoing forum threads here, so any discussion with depth wouldn’t fade into the mist after a few days.)

    2FOR18: That’s cool.I think you feel that Parker has “it”, that quality that can’t be defined or quantified.

    all basketball players have qualities that can’t be especially well defined or quantified. to this point, it seems to be a largely unquantifiable game (at least publicly).

    something that I think Parker is better at than Paul is setting the tone from minute 1 game in and game out. Paul is a fantastic closer, but Parker is going out there with career-long scrubs like Diaw and Green and Neal and making them look like All-Stars from the first quarter on usually, and he doesn’t have Ginobili’s help for the first eight minutes or so. if you’re up by 15 or more late, you don’t need a closer, and I feel like Paul should put his team in a position like this more often than he does as a top 5 guy.

    someone like Frank or ruru should talk about the possibility of guys being “too efficient”, as hard a concept as that might be for THCJ and his tiny cranium to wrap his mind around. Chandler, Harden, Gallinari, Paul, all guys whose offensive contribution levels we’ve debated this year (or at least I have), all guys who someone could make an argument might be more offensively valuable if they took and missed two or three extra shots per game (assuming they were the right shots). taking shots draws defensive attention, drawing defensive attention on one possession opens up teammates on future possessions, to at least some degree. if it’s a big enough cumulative degree, it helps the team overall, in direct contradiction of the box score.

  117. 2FOR18

    jon abbey:
    bump, because I spent time writing this.

    Well since you were responding to my post, I figure I owe you a “good post”. I agree with you about how unquantifiable basketball is, at least according to the stats we outsiders have.

Comments are closed.