[Video] Kevin Martin scores 32 in first half vs. Cavs

Ok since we're comparing Beasley and Martin. If you see Beasley and Martin open for a shot who are you going to pass to? /end discussion.

 

The Martin/Beasley debate has some merit to it. I don't know if you say one is hands down better than the other. For those that say Beasley isn't in Martin's league... the guy was a 2nd round pick for a reason so it's not like we're talking about a young guy coming out of nowhere and producing.

Although having said that we have the better record... so that has to factor in. Can you say that Minny has significantly less talent than Houston does? With Brooks and Yao out, I wouldn't say our talent is that much better (Scola, a role player 2 years ago suddenly is our 2nd best player).

And having said all that... none of this matters. Beasley was a risk when Minny took him... so acting like we blew an opportunity is ludicrous. Also... we have Scola... and I'd argue that Scola is just as good as Beasley without the severe mental issues. I'd probably rather have Beasley, but I'm certainly not unhappy with what we are getting out of the PF spot this season.

So now on to this "Martin is crap" talk. It's a legit criticism of Martin to say that he's not a go to guy in the clutch. He doesn't score well in isolation, but he's arguably the best in the league at scoring within the offense. He also only makes 10 million a year. You have players that teams have drastically overpaid (Rudy Gay, Luou Deng, Ben Gordon)... can we just be glad that we have a player that isn't getting twice as much as he's worth that will be a #2 option on our team for a long time?

Lets not run him out of the city because of high expectations. He is what he is. If we got a #1 option (or at least a go to guy in the 4th that doesn't necessarily have to be a #1... Scola is a possibility here, as is Yao), Martin's abilities would help this team out drastically.

 

Carl, I think it just comes down to us disagreeing on the best way to get to the top of the mountain.

I would probably prefer us to ship out some pieces that are overrated in my mind (Martin) because I just don't think their salary justifies their contribution to the team. I don't think Martin could be your second best player on a championship team.. I'm not even sure he could be your third best honestly. People rush to cite his offense and TS%, but they always leave out his fourth quarter numbers, his lack of rebounding and atrocious defense. Looking at the truly elite teams right now, all of their third options have a greater overall impact on the game than Martin does IMO (Odom, Allen, Bosh, Parker).

And I'm not even calling for a fire sale.. I'd like to keep Brooks. Scola I could go either way on.. and outside of those two (+Martin), the rest of our team is pretty mediocre talent wise. I just don't think we have enough base talent right now to warrant continuing down the same trail.. to me, it's just delaying the inevitable.

But I hope you're right. Anyone in my NBA fantasy leagues will tell you I'm not a patient person and have an itchy trade trigger. I'd prefer not to wait 5+ years for draft picks to develop, but if that's what it takes to build a real contender, I'm all for it.

Come on. If there's 15 seconds left in the game, down 1.. who would you pass to? "/end discussion"

I'm not claiming Beasley is a better spot up shooter, I'm just saying he's shown to be more clutch than Kevin Martin. As I said, I'm probably in the minority, but Martin's FGA and TS% gets blown out of proportion by this board. Those percentages haven't met squat when the game is on the line in the 4th.

Do you think Kevin Martin could be a legitimate second option on a championship team? I dont.

 

What you're describing there is basically true shooting %. Formula is:

TS% = points / (fga + 0.44*fta)

Martin's TS% is much, much higher than Beasley's -- 63% versus 52%.

Beasley is shooting a higher FG%, but Martin is still more efficient from the field because of his 3-point shooting (effective FG% is 52% vs 49% in Martin's favor). Add in that Martin gets to the line much more and shooting 90% there, and he becomes a significantly more efficient scorer.

The point I would make is that even though Martin is very efficient, he's getting those shots against lax defensive pressure and in non-crucial portions of the game. That reduces the actual impact towards winning of his scoring output.

 

Haha, I guess I should cancel my submission to Morey's MIT conference for the awesome new stat I invented then?

I never meant to argue that Beasley was on par with Martin as far as TS% goes. I was just pointing out that the FGA they take are not that far off when you factor in that a lot of Martin's FGA don't count because he gets fouled. I get the TS% value, but it doesn't come into play at the end of ball games. When there's one shot left to win the game, give me the guy who has the higher FG%, not the guy with the higher TS%.

 

Point taken.

 

Arguing whether Martin is a positive contributor overall is far different(and has more merit) than your previous stance on his performance(lack of) during "high leverage" situations. Not that I agree.

Someone else replace him on the floor wouldn't have scored close to that amount because Martin has by far the highest scoring efficiency on this team. If his points were so easily replaceable, others on the team would have no trouble coming close to his TS% or PPS. Which is not the case.

 

LongTimeFan

I understand that you´re problem about Martin is his salary.... but don´t let that idea you have, disturb your vision about his value on the court.

He is NOT paid 11M to be a closer.
He is NOT paid 11M for playing Great defense
He is Not paid 11M to have 5 plus assists or rebounds....

After these 3 items you can say, well, if the player can´t do these 3 things, then there is no way I pay him 11M, I understand, but don´t agree....

KMartin is an ideal 2nd guy on your team, he is a perfect match to a star player.... He is perfect for guys like DHoward because he hits that 3 ball to spread the floor, he is perfect for LBJ because he gets to the line easily, he is perfect for Nash playing off-ball basketball.

The problem is people think you only pay 11M to flashy players, Martin is the guy that goes 25p 6-13fg 11-13 FT in 30 mins, and you say he is overpaid because 10 players can do the same 1 time in their careers.

You know what is the difference between Martin and great Scorers???
Martin can go 0-10 from the field and still score double figures.....

I don´t understand how the majority say that paying 11M for Monta Ellis is great, but paying Martin 11M is overpaying...... does Ellis have flashy Highlights plus tatoos??? Is Martin a low profile player???

And as someone said.... What did we trade for him???

And another thing people used to say, INJURY PRONE?? People crying in this forum because he had 1000 injuries, but now that the personal favorite AB and YAO go down, people don´t even mention how glassy made Martin is.....

And i am not even a huge fan of his, but I like talented players, and I hate when people don´t appreciate probably one of the hardest talents to have in sports, EFFICIENCY, people love those 5-20 games that sometimes those "CLOSERS" have because those 5 buckets were made on the 4th quarter, what people don´t realize is that if the "25p 6-13fg 9-10 FT in 30 mins" player wasn´t on the floor, the game would already be over with a 20 point blowout

PeAcE

 

I don't really understand what you mean. A player who scores more in end-of-game situations helps his team more -- that feeds directly into their overall contributions to the team.

I didn't say the replacement player would score those points. A large proportion of Martin's shots come against non-pressure defense in non-crucial possessions. Take him off, put a competent offensive player in his place, and the shots taken in those unintensely defended possessions will be spread amongst the team. So while no one player will have as high a TS%, the team as a whole may not be much worse off.

 

The difference between Monta Ellis and Kevin Martin is that Monta Ellis can win you games down the stretch. Kevin Martin disappears as soon as the refs tuck in their whistles. That said, I wouldn't really want Monta Ellis either.

And what we traded for him is irrelevant. Nobody is arguing that it was a BAD trade. We're just discussing his present contribution to the team and whether or not he could be a second or third fiddle in a championship contender that we're trying to build.

I don't know what the injury prone argument has to do with anything; I haven't really made it the focal point of any of my arguments. But you can bet that as soon as he does go down, all those naysayers will come rushing back.

I appreciate Martin.. but I just think you guys are making a bigger deal over his efficiency than is warranted. I know people think two points in the first quarter is worth the same as two points in the last two minutes, but I disagree. Logically, they're right. But when the game hangs in the balance, I care less about what you did in quarters one through three and more about what you're going to do to get us this win. Players are remembered for what they did in the clutch, not how many points they scored before the fourth quarter.

I don't agree with the argument that "without Martin, we'd be down by 20!" The mini-formula I used earlier showed he was getting about 19 FGA a game when you count every two free throws as one shot attempt. Those FGA would be spread around to other players who would help fill the void -- it's not as if we're losing 20PPG with no replacement for it. Additionally, perhaps the guy filling in for Martin can actually play defense and helps limit the guy he's guarding to 14 points instead of Martin letting him drop 20+. A lot of little things factor in to the result of games.

 

While there is no doubt that scoring more in end-of-game situations helps the team -in fact there should be and is a premium put on it- it is not the only way to help a team. How else would bench players contribute to a team's wins when they aren't even in end-of-game situations?

In that case, in past seasons we should have had no problem maintaining the offensive efficiency generated this season with Martin. Which again, is simply not the case, as demonstrated by the highest offensive efficiency since the 1998/1999 season aforementioned by Carl Herrera.

 

I think a lot of the flack Martin gets is due to his salary and the perceived production we should be getting out of it. In reality, maybe the problem is with our perception.

Kevin Martin $11.1M
______________________

Jamal Crawford $10.1M
Mo Williams $9.3M
Jason Terry $10.7M
Caron Butler $10.6M
Richard Hamilton $12.7M
Ben Gordan $10.8M
Ray Allen $10M
Jason Richardson $14.4M
Boris Diaw $9M
Stephen Jackson $8.5M
Luol Deng $11.4M
Antawn Jamison $13.4M
Tayshaun Prince $11.1M
Monta Ellis $11M
Mike Dunleavy $10.6M
Rudy Gay $13.6M
Corey Maggette $9.6M
John Salmons $8M
JJ Redick $7.5M
Hedo Turkeyglue $9.8M
Jose Calderon $9M
Kirk Hinrich $9M

Not really out of line whatsoever.

 

I just don't get it. So what? What good is that stat? Our team is 9-14 and 11th in the West!!!

What's the point of claiming the "highest offensive efficiency since.." if we're just going to be another crappy team in the West? This is what I mean when I say people are overrating 'efficiency' and how it actually contributes to a winning team.

 

Didn't say otherwise.

A couple points:

First looking at our offensive efficiency this season and at this juncture could be misleading. If teams find they can score easily against you, they may not defend you quite as hard (because they don't need to in order to maintain or extend a lead). Also, if you schedule-adjust the offensive ratings, we drop from 8th in the league to 15th. Edit: nevermind this point on schedule; I read the table wrong. We'd still be 9th.

Second, if you really wanted to delve into those numbers to see how Martin improves the offense, offensive adjusted +/- might be more instructive than just looking at the team's overall offensive efficiency for the season. It turns out that Martin's adjusted +/- impact, even on the offensive end, is not particularly impressive. Its positive, but not in the vicinity of the elite offensive players. He's more comparable to Aaron Brooks. I would say a reason for that is its just easier for a team to make up for the production of a player who scores baskets against relaxed defenses. His scoring output overstates the true impact he's having on the game.

 

Looking at offensive efficiency is simply a more comprehensive way at looking at our scoring. It would be like saying, "What good is looking at how much we score?"

Obviously there are other factors that go into wins and losses. Which is why we have to isolate these factors in determining what our strengths/weaknesses are. The reason why we are 9-14 and 11th in the West has much more to do with our defense and defensive rebounding. Starting a 6'6 center most likely contributes greatly to that.

The reason why we look at things like offensive efficiency, defensive efficiency, rebounding % etc, etc is to break the game down in our analysis. It is not so simple where we can "just win", without knowing how to improve the team in specific areas.

 

I'm sure it does.

1. He is averaging nearly 26 points per 36 minutes (2nd in the league, behind only Kobe)
2. He has a TS% of .631 (12th in the league, but no one above him, except for Dirk, is scoring at nearly the pace he does)
3. He is 2nd in FTA per 36 min (behind only D. Howard)
4. 1st in FTM per 36.
​

So, if all these numbers don't over state his impact on the game, Martin would be possibly the best scorer in the league.

But the thing is few people, not even Rockets fans, think of him as, say, a top 5 player even in terms of pure scoring ability, like hi "numbers" may suggest he is.

We know he is good for pouring in a ton of points in a modest amount of possessions, but isn't as good as, say, Kobe, Lebron or Wade in terms of a guy you can hand the ball to and tell him to create a good scoring opportunity for himself or the team. We know the opponent can take him away by making defensive adjustments, especially down the stretch, and you'd need to find someone else to get you these points.

I think most Rockets fans likely have a fairly balanced view of what Martin is. Certainly the front office and the coaching staff most likely does, but that's another discussion.

 

I am not sure it can be so simply rationalized that Martin is just scoring efficiently against bad defenses. Every other player on the Rockets play against the same defenses, and no one else comes close to Martin's efficiency. Same could be said of the rest of the league. If it is cherry picking and flopping that is resulting in Martin's numbers, then there is something to be said for being the best cherry picker and flopper out there.

As for the adjusted +/- that is interesting. Adjusted +/- in general is a relatively new stat with multiple iterations/calculations, so I would definitely like to look over how they got their numbers where ever you found it. It would be hard to believe that we could have that big of a boost in offense with Martin being the only worthwhile change in lineup, and have him not contribute much to it.

 

Which is my point. As I've said, some people on this board take these advanced stats out of proportion. I understand why these stats exist, but I believe that relying on one individual stat or one side of the ball too much does no good.

Citing Martin's TS% is nice, but it's far from telling the whole story. I'm not going to celebrate the best offensive efficiency since we lost in the first round in 99 when we're 4 games below .500. I would gladly sacrifice offensive 'efficiency' for some defense.

Kevin Martin's TS% is elite. He's made us one of the top offensively efficient teams in the early going. Great. How's his defense? Rebounding? How well does he setup his teammates? How well does he score in the clutch? How's he doing in the stat that counts the most, the W-L department? Not very well -- because of his rebounding, defense, and lack of ability to score when isolated in big situations. So yeah, sure, terrific TS%.. but as an overall player? Meh.. he's alright.. not worth $11M a year in my eyes. But we're all entitled to our opinions.

Brooks contributes more to our team's overall success than Martin does, even if his 'offensive efficiency' stats don't back that up.

 

LOL. Seriously. Perspective, peole, perspective. With what we've given up for him, I don't understand why people are not happy with Martin.

 

I'm not sure anyone is "celebrating" our offensive efficiency. I simply used it as a point of reference against the argument that Martin does not contribute much to our offensive uptick.

Take a look at my post of other players in the same salary vicinity. Which of them are significantly better to make Martin not worth $11M? If he had defense, rebounding, playmaking and scoring in the clutch, along with his elite TS%, he would be one of the best players in the league. Do you think we could have still gotten him for a backup PF that is now averaging less than 12 points 5 rebounds 46FG% in 27 minutes?