No, it's not. You're not understanding what adjusted +/- means. Firstly, Battier doesn't have the best +/- in the league. But if he did, of course that wouldn't be the best team. Nor would it be the best team if you did that with LeBron or Kobe or Paul or Duncan or Garnett. I'm not sure what you think that hypothetical proves.
Ha, Feigen asked the exact same question you're asking now. What he said was that a team of five Battiers would never, ever win a championship. But a team without a Battier will also never, ever win a championship. He makes superstars better. It's not his fault if the Rockets' superstars have sucked it up.
makes superstars better?? ak47 and harpring have thoroughly outplayed him in the playoffs the past 2 years. hell, if battier can even be 50% of james posey, i'll be glad. james posey can defend, rebound, but more importantly, has the guts to shoot AND score. that's why the celtics win. shane is not even close to james posey.
There's really no proof of this but by the way that he plays i would expect this is true. ...and i don't think its because he's a great player, it's just the things he's good at mesh well with a team with players who dominate the ball. Phil would have loved him on those Shaq/Kobe squads. But, as long as Yao or Tracy, is our best player (unless one of them plays out of character), Shane is a luxury we can't afford. We need more aggressive players that can pick up the slack.
1) Posey doesn't play for Boston 2) Boston has a better record this year w/o Posey than they did last year 3) New Orleans has a worse record this year w/Posey than they did last year 4) Where was Posey on the DPOY voting results? I must have missed his name
I thought that's why we got Artest. Suppose we didn't have Artest on the team, but instead we had a fully healthy Shane Battier playing 35 minutes a game. How much worse would our record be right now?
I think its funny how people doubt Battier's impact on games even when every coach who has had him has given him heavy minutes. Every coach who has had him trusts him on the floor. And again, to have a career +- of +6 is rather significant. I think it proves that he's a good basketball player. And I'm not a huge numbers guy, but I do like to back up my beliefs with evidence, and that backs up what I see every game Battier play in. He makes people around him better but not in an obvious way. He just understands positioning, he out thinks his opponents, he is always aware of where the ball is and where its going or where it should go, and he plays within himself on offense. The numbers spell it out simply, he does things that make the team more efficient while making the other team less efficient. Thats how you win.
I think we're all just conditioned to judge players based on their playmaking ability. If the team struggles, then guys who don't do much playmaking will get more blame.
Battier's not there to score points. That's the job of Yao and T-Mac, and given how both of those guys have needed to hold the ball to be successful Battier's probably the perfect compliment to them. That was before Adelman though.
That's the point. To win you need superstars and role players. Shane's the perfect complimentary piece. The Rockets have got one, they need the other. Go out and trade for some superstars. If the Rockets trade Battier they're going to need to acquire both superstars and the complimentary piece. They'll need to acquire both pieces instead of just one.
Yep, When a team is losing, every player gets blame, but its alot easier to blame guys who don't produce points, rebounds, assists. To me the biggest factor in our losses this year has been our horrible shooting and our inconsistant interior defense Our shooting guards have been inefficient shooters. That means the guys who are taking the most shots, arent making them. Thats a huge problem. On defense we give up way too many easy baskets inside and way too many easy points in transition. Something you rarely saw when Van Gundy was the coach. I don't blame adelman, I just think our defense has taken a step back for whatever reason this year. Our shooting is horrible, but it has been for a while, and now were giving up easy baskets. That has to change.
post #93 is almost exactly how i feel. We have no superstars. We need superstars. But, there are only so many players in the league that are either currently superstars are have potential to be one in the future. So if we can't get a superstar we need to become a more formidable all-around team with weapons at all positions. I believe Shane is one of those players with good trade value that we could possibly move (possibly packaged with other players) for a more aggressive player. I feel like there are too many 'untouchable' players on this team even though we haven't been out of the 1st round. Everyone seems to think our problem is fit. Which sounds crazy to me, we have some of the least selfish, willing to do whatever it takes to win, role players on any team in the league...and they're good. The problem is the team was built perfectly for a inside/outside dual superstar system. We don't have that and if we intend to go forward with 1 or more of Yao/Artest/Mcgrady we need to change the personnel around them...and that means we need more aggressive players. It doesn't shock me that Von Wafer has worked so well here.
FreeDarko and the pathos of Battier I love this blog. I know a lot don't but it ain't my fault http://freedarko.blogspot.com/2009/02/check-into-tomorrow.html
As an aside to the T-Mac saga/trade deadline speculation, how about another discussion on Battier and the intangible stats between Bill Simmons and John Hollinger? It's been up for a while, but I just realized it. Enjoy: http://sports.espn.go.com/stations/player?id=3913441
http://sportscomplex.blogs.citypaper.net/blogs/mu/2009/02/19/morning-rounds-february-19th/ Alright, I know it’s trading deadline day, and I know the hilarity of the Tyson Chandler non-trade is through the roof, but this Shane Battier back-and-forth is getting out of control and I’m chiming in. For those who don’t know, last Sunday Michael Lewis penned an article entitled The No-Stats All-Stars for the Grey Lady’s Magazine edition. In it, he argued that Daryl Morey, the general manager of the Houston Rockets, is re-imaging the way we view basketball. Instead of relying on scouts and traditional stats, he’s trying to micro-focus on numbers to determine worth. It’s been seen, essentially, as Moneyball for basketball, a claim which some people up in arms on face value (“you can’t just quantify …. stuff.”) others over the claim (“you call this moneyball?! I followed moneyball: I knew moneyball; moneyball was a friend of mine. Article, you’re no moneyball.”) and still more just kinda in general (“Battier? He stinks.”). Needless to say it’s been a fun week. Let’s look at the debate. Now, before I go on I should admit that I’m in the tank for Lewis. I loved Moneybal, The Blind Side, pretty much all his work for Play and I’m plowing through Liar‘s Poker as we speak (an aside: Liar’s poker (the game, not the book) is a sick drinking game. The more you know …). I think the pantheon of sports writers today starts with Roger Angell, goes to Michael Lewis, and then continues from there, so while I don’t know the guy personally, that is where I’m coming now. That said, from where I’m sitting there are two real sides to the argument. The first, which claims that Battier is mediocre, the Rockets are a poor tack to hang the story, and the second, which believes Morey has done for basketball what Beane did in baseball. I’ll try to hit their main points before moving on. Shane Battimeh. (see what I did there?) Who is this goon and why do people think he’s good at stuff? This side of the debate suggest that Battier has been surrounded by some elite level talent, which may have a lot more to do with his win totals than anything else. Lewis makes this team like something unique about Battier - he cites a team when Battier, then a high school senior, helped convince Elton Brand to join him at Duke - but it isn’t at all. Battier has been fortunate to play on talented teams with talented players who have thrived in and out of his presence, and high schoolers recruiting each other has been going on as long as coaches recruiting high schoolers has been. Further, he’s played on some really good teams, and while he’s been an integral cog on most of them, it isn’t crazy to suggest that he was, in fact, merely the replaceable part that conventional wisdom seems to suggest. Doron kinda outlined this point yesterday (for the clog! the jerk). Further, everyone knows he’s a good defender. The characterization that he’s “slow, unathletic, and lacks body control” is true, but it also doesn’t say much about his value. Battier isn’t good at scoring with the ball, but chastising him for that would be like complaining that Steve Nash doesn’t block enough shots - accurate, sure, but given the whole not exactly damning. When Morey brags about his strengths, he’s not telling us new strengths but rather just hyping up old ones. Anyone who watches basketball knows that Kobe is going to have to work harder to get his points against a guy like Shane than against a guy like Jason Kapano. Making that point over the course of a couple thousand words doesn’t make it any more true. On the other hand … Shane Battiyay! alright, I kinda feel bad about that one Who is this goon, and when can we elect him to public office? On the other hand … Battier’s teams are really good, and since basketball is the game that stats continue to explain the least maybe that is important. Battier isn’t Kobe, true, maybe there does seem to be a real argument to be made not only that he’s underrated, but also that he can be properly rated - and that, Rockets’ GM Daryl Morey is doing a better job of rating him than the rest of the league. Basically, the argument goes, Morey has found a way to make the age old “intangibles” tangible. Unfortunately, it is this new rating system that is the most relevant part of the piece, and for obvious reasons also something that Morey refuses to discuss. There are hints - Battier believes that knocking the ball away from an opponent as they prepare to shoot could be a blocked shot, for instance - of what they may be, but but everything that comes out of the article seems to be small examples of potential new stats, not a rosetta stone of deciphering ball. And that sucks. In the end I left reading the piece more curious, if not tangibly smarter. It was stuff we all seemed to know but also stuff that was good to get out there. Battier is probably better than his stats make him out to be, but worse than Lewis describes him. I’m guessing that this fact isn’t lost on Morey either, and that if some foolish GM reads the Times‘ piece and comes banging on his door offering someone with more traditional value for the swingman, well, I think Morey would listen. Now, the most boring mixtape you’ll ever see …. <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/FFH2kevG_e0&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/FFH2kevG_e0&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
