I didn't say anything about "efficient but limited offensive players" struggling. I said if those guys are going to put us over the top, then we'd already be close to complete. In that case a young talent could just as easily give us what we need to get over the hump. Case in point, those spurs teams had Duncan, Robinson, and later Tony Parker and Ginobli. Those Lakers teams had a Shaq at his absolute zenith, and an emerging Kobe. Those bulls teams obviously had Jordan and Pippen. Are you saying that under those circumstances if you swap out Horry, Kerr, or Bowen for an immensly talented young player, those teams couldn't do just as well? Hell, Tony Parker in 2003 could be considered as an example of a young player, who was wild and inconsistent, yet had the talent to make a big contribution to his team's title run. Lack of veteran saavy didn't seem to hold him back. Also, there's no way that Robert Horry is an efficient but limited offensive player. Look at his size, length and skills and there's a reason why Danny Ainge expected him to play like Scottie Pippen all the time (and got a towel thrown in his face for his troubles). In fact Horry is closer to the kind of player that Gay is criticized for being: inconsistent, doesn't assert himself enough, and doesn't play up to his potential all the time. Obviously Horry has this freakish ability to suddenly "turn it on" with seconds left on the clock during crucial playoff games, but that is truly a unique ability for the guy and not something I expect anybody to duplicate, be they Battier or Gay. Speaking of Big Shot Rob, why don't you add Cassell and Horry (rockets era) to the list of talented young players, who made mistakes and were inconsistent, but ended up contributing just as much towards a championship as any veteran role players on the team. The fact that one of them blossomed into a top flight PG, and the other into one of the clutchest three point shooters in history illustrates exactly why this deal was so badly received. These guys developed into something special. Battier is what he is, but Gay could become much more. And while we're waiting for Gay to figure things out, he's still got the talent to make an impact.
I always have thought, with our history, that the idea that rookies and young players couldn't seriously be considered as big contributors early in their careers, at least the possibility of them contributing, more that a bit ironic. Sure, for every Cassell, Cat, and Horry, you have literally a host of guys that don't manage it, but the fact remains that we've had some damn fine results from them over the years. Obviously, someone like Battier is proven and a huge asset to the team. I just wish we could have snagged the 24th pick from Memphis. There were a lot of good players left on the board at 24. A lot. We might have pulled a rabbit out of our hat once again. Oh, well.
One of my buddies gave me this situation, and it really helped settle me on the Battier trade: If the Rockets had traded Gay and Swift for Ron Artest, would you have been upset? And the answer is a resounding no. Artest, while not a fantasy superstar, is a difference maker. Well, Battier is the closest sane thing to Artest that is currently available. (Tayshaun Prince and Bruce Bowen aren't going anywhere.)
Well that assumes that Battier is a shutdown perimeter defender. He's got a reputation for being a good defender, but I haven't heard anyone proclaim him to be great. Not to mention that since much of the talk from the Rockets (CD, Mcgrady etc) has hinted at Battier playing the 3/4 instead of the 2/3, it doesn't really inspire much confidence in these Artest, Bowen or Prince comparisons.
They are all small forwards. I can almost guarantee that when facing a traditionally assembled team, with a low-post threat at PF, Battier will play the 3. I pasted the links in another thread, but last year, Battier tied Bruce Bowen for the lowest effective FG% allowed among SF's. The comparison between Battier and Marion and Artest (with the Kings) is weak, because they play in significantly different systems. But he allows a lower effective FG% than Prince, Artest with Indy, and Andrei Kirilenko. And those are all valid comparisons (defense only).
We'll see. Stats can be skewed in different ways. How much of this is the individual's defensive prowess and how much is due to the team's defensive success. I mean Chicago had the best opp FG% in the league last year. So I don't think it's a coincidence that Luol Deng had a lower effective FG% allowed than everyone that you named. Not to mention that since most of the best defensive teams employ a collapse and help defensive scheme, it makes it even harder to distinguish where credit goes for a good defensive sequence. Looking at the pure numbers, you don't get a sense for who got bailed out by rotating defense, and who played their part to perfection but still got scored on through someone else's error. So I don't care about the stats. All I want to know is can JVG point to an opponent and tell Shane to "shut them down", and Battier can do it. Because I've seen Bowen, Artest, and Prince do that before. I've seen a healthy Mcgrady do that. I don't know about this Battier guy. I need to see him in action. I'll keep an open mind. If he's everything your stats say he is, then he'll show it on the court come November. Then I'll gladly give him his props and admit that my doubts were in error.
Great posts guys. A lot of very productive talk about how we evaluate talent and where our team should be heading. I would like to say this to Morey's credit(just by virtue of his past & present position). However you feel about Morey and his non-traditional/academic approach to talent evaluations, at very least he stands as a wedge figure in the future of the Rockets and I think it is probably a good idea to have people reevaluating their methodology in this new NBA. Give the Rockets organization credit for recognizing the need to evolve despite their relative success in recent years. ...and to speak briefly about some of the the intangibles that don't make the stat sheet and are more obscured than illuminated in the +/- unit samples... Let's take Stromile - reduce his production(or lack of) to stats and what you don't get a feel for is how he doesn't understand the offensive sets or the defenses his team runs. Sometimes more than his own stats, it will affect his teammate's stats and not just in the points scored/allowed collumn. For instance, a botched defense assignment could lead to an open FG attempt or a foul by another player in Swift's unit. If they are playing a poor FG or FT shooting team, you have little in the way of measurements that captures this but it's obviously very tangible and effects the flow of the game. Watching Swift last year I really think he just doesn't "get it". Standing around looking lost - trying to set an away from the ball pick and kind of standing their limp....little things like that to go with his poor body language. He was more of a liability than the stats prove. Now, take a guy like Cassel now. I'm not sure how his measurments this year stack up to other PGs, but I guarantee their is no statistical trail that can explain the value he brings to his younger teammates in his swagger and lack of fear. He certainly brings a heart and attitude to his team that allows his teammates to overachieve. To a lesser extent, this is the same theory that brings value to guys like Sura & even Jon Barry a few years ago. How many times do you remember the Rockets getting dominated on both sides of the ball and VG bringing in a guy like Barry who hits a contested three ball and then gets in the face of the other team's best player moments later after hustling to get the ball in a scrum on the court. You can't quantify those moments, but in a game of streaks - they are essential to your team's success. I just wanted to throw a few wrinkles into the argument to remind you all that we shouldn't overlook the things measurements can't capture....
Although I broke it down in another thread (listed the primary 4s from every team who finished ahead of the Rockets), very few of the teams we are concerned about have that traditional power 4 who is a major low post threat (where Battier could be exploited do to strength). Most of the better teams now have 4s that move or play more like 3s--Dirk, Howard, Marion, Diaw, Horry, Haslem, Walker, Sheed, etc. Thus I think the chief reason we traded for Battier is that a front line of Yao, Battier and Tmac will almost always be superior to a front line of Yao, Swift and Tmac, or Yao, Howard and Tmac. Personally I think Prince's defense is overated. It is one thing to be taken off of Wade because he made you look bad (this happened both the last two playoff series). But it is another to have Ginobili make you look very bad as what happened last year (if I recall they had to try Rip on him). So I think Battier being in the Prince class, maybe even better, isn't a major stretch. But Artest and Bowen are at another level.
Great point about the "wedge figure." Having more voices with different approaches to look at players is a good thing. Lets remember that the first thing Les Alexander did after hiring Morey was to sign Dennis L. up for several more years. The more traditional scouting methods are still going to have a big input into the personnell decisions. Daryl Morey isn't running his team off a spreadsheet. Analytic stats, however, could be helpful in convincing Van Gundy to, say, not play Juwan Howard quite so much, despte the fact that he's a pretty smart player and a good pro. Morey probably would have helped to prevent the signing of the Catos and the Mo Taylors of the world. On the other hand, focusing exclusively on these numbers-- however detailed they are (the stuff the pros look at are much deeper than the casual stuff on 82games.com)-- could equally result in bad acqusitions. Battier looks good from an analytical stats point of view, but as I pointed out in my first post, this is not the only point of view in which he looked great. Jerry Colangelo evidentally thought highly enough of him to give him a Team USA invite. The guy makes things happen on the court and makes few mistakes. In fact, besides not scoring a whole lot, he's a very good fantasy basketball player, too, by contributing in multiple traditional stats categories. The +/- and player pair numbers simply reflects his play in a quantitative form better than simply looking at points and rebounds dol.
