Do you think GM’s consider per 40 numbers and PERs before they pursue a player? I went back and looked at Jared’s production for the season prior to his signing with the Knicks (2005-06). JJ’s numbers don’t at all justify the contract Isiah gave him (and dont let me get started on James’ numbers based on the three seasons prior to his windfall). JJ’s net production was a -3.9, meaning he produced less than the opponent. His on/off court production was a push. His per 40 minute numbers… 10 ppg, 7.7 rebs, and 2.9 assists. How did this justify nearlu tripling his salary? It does not!!

82games.com, in addition to the Roland ratings, provides a “fair slary” which represents the salary earned based on production and minutes played. In 2005-06 JJ fair salary was 2.09 mill and his actual salary was 2.4 million. So according to 82games.com, JJ was not even earning his keep at 2.4 million. So Isiah either ignored the numbers or failed to look into them becuase he nearly tripled JJ’s salary with no reason to think that JJ could even earn half that amount.

Also for those of you who thought the Knicks should have drafted a point, acording to 82games.com the SF position was the least productive position last year (lowest PER). SF also gave up the highest PER (19.5) to opponents. Most of that is due to Q and JJ, who played the majority of SF minutes and have an average PER of 8.32. Balkman and Chandler avearge a PER of 11.7. I blame Isiah for this. I think he felt he need to push JJ and Q becuase those were the big money players he brought in to play SF. He would have been better served by playing the players he drafted.

I like this stat stuff.

If I understand Roland ratings right (not saying I do), it’s largely a “total production” measure as opposed to a strictly “efficiency” measure. So, a guy who plays few minutes, i.e. Chandler, will not rack up a high Roland rating.

I am also a big Balkman fan — I think his value is even higher than the numbers, because he is a good on-ball defender with potential to be a great one — and that is only a small factor in the numbers (via plus-minus). I actually don’t think there’s an issue of fitting in D’Antoni’s system — as far as I can tell, the real premise is getting off quick shots before the defense is set. (i.e. — the polar opposite of “The Quick,” with Randolph holding it for 10 seconds, or waiting until Curry is triple-teamed to pass him the ball). You get quick shots by running and passing, not by leaving it to individual players to create their shot.

I think Chandler could be a good starter, too, eventually, but the sample size is very small and he is still extremely raw.

One of the problems I have had this off season is figuring out who should start a SF for the Knicks next year. Based on the number of time I cursed at Q and JJ this year I though it should not be either of them. I thought it should be either Balkman or Chandler, but which one? I figured let the numbers tell the tale. So I used Mike K.’s excellent stat page (Chap Stick please) to figure out which of our small forwards should be starting. I don’t have numbers for Gallanri, so he got left out.

I decided to compare 40 minutes stats because “Study, after study, after study shows a player’s per minute production to stay the same despite how many minutes they play.” (More Chap stick). However Mike, I think Per 40 minute stats cant be viewed in a vacuum. Otherwise, you get freakish number s from a person who clearly can’t maintain that pace e.g. Jerome James. I also wanted to look at things Usage-r and eFG% together because I think that a player’s ability to create his own shot is only valuable if he can do it efficiently. Finally, I wanted to look at a Stat system outside of Mike’s, just to give some perspective. I used the Roland rating at 82games.com.

Q:

I found that Q should not be starting. Q had the second lowest PER of any Knick SF (8.61) and the second lowest eFG (42.1). Those are not good numbers from SF who is known as an offensive player. Q’s Roland rating of -6.4 is lowest of all Knick small forwards. Basically, Q was the least valuable SF to the Knicks. When you consider the number of minutes Q plays, you realize that he is dead weight. When you combine him with Curry, it drags the team to a near standstill. So the numbers support that Q should not start. I’m not sure whether D’Antoni will bench Q or try to let him recapture his career season of 2004-05 when he had a Roland rating of +5.7.

JJ:
Jared was even worse than Q. He had the lowest PER at 8.01, the lowest eFG at 40.7, and the lowest Usage rate 12.1. Well one might say, “Yeah, but JJ is not an offensive player. He rebounds and plays D.” Does he do that well enough to justify the anemic offensive numbers? The stats say “No.” Though JJ played similar minutes to Chandler and Balkman, his Rebounding rate is lower. He also sports the highest turnover rate of any Knick small forward. He had the highest Roland rating at -3.3.

Chandler:

Many people-me included-were excited about Chandler’s play at the close of the season. Chandler had the highest PER at 11.84-which is still below average but not bad when compared to all Rookies. He was in the top 25 of all rookies for PER and had a higher PER than Yi Jillian, Glen Davis, Nick Young, and Javaris Crittenden. Chandler had the highest Usage rate at 17.9 and the second highest eFG% and tFG% (48). But according to the Roland rating, Chandler was only marginally more valuable to the team than Q (-5.3 compared to -6.4). I’m not sure how to explain that.

Balkman:

Balkman sports the 2nd highest PER at 11.61. He has the highest eFG% (49.2) and highest TS% (49.2). He also has the highest FT/FG rate (22). Balkman does not create his own shot (11.7 USGr) but he is a more efficient scorer than the other SF’s. Balkman’s Points per 40 min is only 2 points lower than Q’s but Balkman brings much more efficient scoring and the highest rebounding rate of any Knick SF (12.9).

So who should start? My vote would be for Balkman because I love the efficiency and rebounding. But given that D’Antoni’s style of play values players that can create their own shot, Chandler may be the best choice as he has the highest USGr and second highest shooting efficiency numbers.

The numbers dont justify allowing Q and JJ to play at all. So, do I get it now?

This is getting preachy. An equal number of studies has shown that players who play better get more minutes. Need I add, “duh”.

http://www.82games.com/ilardi1.htm

What happened to the comment in the left column. Is that gone forever. Am I going to be driven to an rss feed for comments?

I’m with you, I think even the stereotypical “Joe Six-Pack” fan would incorporate it. I suppose the big obstacle are the basketball versions of Joe Morgan. I’ve heard intelligent people who can’t get past the per 40 thing.