Bleacher Report - Articles by Quentin McCall

A Developmental Approach To Rebuilding: Forecasting 2010 For OKC (Pt. 2)

Quentin McCall — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 05:34:50 -0400

In yesterday’s post about Oklahoma City’s rebuilding plan, we looked at the foundation they’re building around Kevin Durant now and the value of their 2010 cap room.

But even with a solid foundation of young players, the questions that still need to be answered are: 1) what are their needs?; and 2) can they fill them with the cap room they’ve saved?

Can OKC beat “The Salary Cap Myth” in 2010?

There’s been a lot of anticipation for the 2010 off-season because there will certainly be a lot of talent available for rebuilding teams like OKC—Olympians LeBron James, Dwayne Wade, and Chris Bosh can all opt out of their contracts thus becoming unrestricted free agents. So with the cap room they will likely have available for the 2010 season, it’s hard not to think that OKC’s future is bright. Unfortunately, that’s not quite true.

The COSELLOUT blog had an excellent analysis of something called “The Salary Cap Myth”. Although fans and NBA front offices often assume that clearing massive amounts of salary cap room is automatically good for a team, history tells us otherwise. The reality is that the odds are generally stacked against teams trying to better themselves through free agency—between the 1997 and 2007 off-seasons, only nine free agents switched team, or less than one per year.

However, some might look at what happened this off-season—Baron Davis, Corey Maggette, and Elton Brand all opting out and changing teams along with Ron Artest being traded—and find reason for hope that they can obtain a free agent. But really, the only team that benefited from being under the cap to start the 2008 off-season was Philadelphia; Golden State and the LA Clippers essentially traded Davis for Maggette after they both opted out—it’s not as though either team planned to have a ton of cap room to pursue another team’s free agent this off-season.

But what makes OKC’s plan unique is that they will probably be looking to fill needs—likely offensive rebounding and inside scoring—through the 2010 free agent extravaganza instead of chasing some elusive savior. It’s also worth keeping in mind that as Durant gets stronger, his place in the NBA will be more at the small forward than shooting guard so they will need to add a shooting guard in the near future.

So given the odds, how realistic is it that OKC can get an impact free agent in 2010 to complement their young core and vault them back into playoff contention?

OKC’s options in 2010

Given their existing young core, what OKC will need right now is probably another play maker to set up Westbrook and Durant plus a post player to give them an inside out game and diversify their offense. There are a number of options available, though I wouldn’t get too excited about the really big names.

Amare Stoudemire, Chris Bosh and Tyson Chandler could be reasonable fits as well, but personally, I don’t see any of them changing teams. Tracy McGrady and LeBron James duplicate a lot of what Durant does and are better at it, so I don’t see either of them switching teams to play with Durant (unless Durant is unexpectedly traded). And I see no reason for Chandler to leave the magical play making ability of Chris Paul who made him look like a superstar in the playoffs.

Given that restricted free agents change teams considerably less than unrestricted free agents, the players that best fit OKC’s current foundation are Joe Johnson and Brad Miller. Those are feasible additions.

Joe Johnson has proved to be a smooth play-maker from the two or three spot who can also score. He would be the perfect guard in the back court next to Westbrook if he develops into a consistent scorer.

Brad Miller might be a surprise because of his injury history, but with Durant, Westbrook, and Green already in the fold and possibly Joe Johnson along with them, the team would be best served by a big man that can facilitate from the high post and run an offense predicated on motion and cuts to the basket, an offense in which Green would excel. Miller would be the perfect man for the job.

The team they field for the 2010-11 season could then look something like this:

Westbrook, Johnson, Durant, Green, Miller

Is that team a contender on paper? Probably not. And really, it’s not likely that they get any bigger names than Johnson or Miller and probably more unlikely they get both.

OKC could also look at 2009 free agency and consider stealing Carlos Boozer or Mehmet Okur away from the Jazz, both of whom could fill needs in the post, Okur perhaps a better fit in the high post. But again, both players would have to opt out of their contracts and all indications are that the Jazz are looking to keep both of them.

Conclusion: Waiting for 2010 is not enough, even with a good foundation

What I think this little thought experiment demonstrates is that OKC could find solid pieces to build a cohesive team in 2010. And given the foundation they’re building and the money they’ll have available, it’s possible that they might entice a player or two to leave their team. But it also demonstrates that this team will likely not become a contender if all they do is wait for 2010, consistent with Berri’s analysis and “The Salary Cap Myth”.

However, it’s worth keeping in mind that there are a number of other ways this team can improve. Assuming no major trades, they will have a high lottery pick and a late first round pick in the 2009 draft and likely a late lottery pick in 2010. Looking at the prospects available based on NBAdraft.net, they should have the opportunity to fill a lot of needs through the draft. They also just drafted a promising young forward in Serge Ibaka who they will watch develop overseas.

In addition, they have the expiring contracts of Chris Wilcox and Donyell Marshall as well as the recently acquired contracts of Desmond Mason and Joe Smith to trade this season, which could yield additional talent or draft picks. Given Sam Presti’s track record thus far, it seems unlikely that they would just let those contracts expire—some team looking for a playoff boost will want one of those players.

So with the young prospects they figure to add, they might only have to reinforce areas of need in 2010. In other words, there are a lot of variables at work for OKC and if even some of them play out well, this will be a very competitive team in the future even if things currently look bleak.

But what I like most about this team is that with the foundation they’ve already built, we can see that there is some sort of direction or underlying plan that could make this team competitive in the near future. It’s not like the haphazard conglomeration of talent that the Clippers put together in the 90’s—there’s a real team hidden in this 20-win squad.

What fans will have to remember is that it takes time to build a sustainable winner given all the rules in the NBA and not even 2010 can guarantee a quick fix. Teams need a plan, perhaps a fortunate trade or two, and patience to appropriately rebuild. From GM Sam Presti:

"When you rebuild a team in the NBA, it takes time,” Presti said. "Whether you move out some pieces or build through the draft, you must be patient. We recognize this. Sure, we have to massage certain things, but there has to be a common thread. You need to take care of today and sustain something for the future. We feel this is a good starting point.”

Far too often, teams will start rebuilding a team and then change course because they gamble on players who don’t reach their expected potential, they put together talent that doesn’t complement each other, or they just grow impatient and switch to win now mode.

To Sam Presti’s credit, it looks as though the team has avoided these three pitfalls thus far—they have directed all their energy toward developing their young players, they are clearly conscious of the need to put together complementary talent, and they have made it clear that winning is not their concern unless they can make it sustainable.

But perhaps the biggest question for OKC is how they plan to stack up with the other teams in the Western Conference that are building for the future, particularly the Golden State Warriors and Portland Trailblazers, both of which are very talented young teams.

Also interesting is that they’ve each taken different approaches to team building—the Warriors are explicitly building around a particular style of play whereas the Trailblazers are accumulating as much young talent as possible through the draft.

Which rebuilding strategy is the best? Which rebuilding team stands to benefit the most from 2010? We’ll have to wait and see. But for right now, OKC’s rebuilding process is as fascinating as it is sound and it looks like they’re moving in the right direction for their new fans.

Click here to see Part 1: Oklahoma City's Development Approach to Rebuilding: Can It Work.

Relevant Links:

NBA Salary Cap Analysis, Part 1: Free Agents Over The Next Three Years

Oklahoma City’s Developmental Approach to Rebuilding: Can It Work? (Part 1)

Quentin McCall — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 07:42:40 -0400

For most NBA fans, it’s no secret that the Oklahoma City franchise will likely be forced to endure another losing season and trip to the lottery after the 2008-09 season.

Perhaps less widely acknowledged is that it will probably be their fourth consecutive losing season, and their sixth losing season in the last seven.

In other words, this franchise’s struggles pre-date Clay Bennett, the somewhat unexpected departures of Ray Allen and Rashard Lewis last summer, and ex-coach Bob Hill’s stagnant offensive sets. This team has been struggling for a while, and they can’t be expected to recapture the magic of the 90s, when they were a playoff team for eight consecutive seasons.

So this situation inherited by Oklahoma City raises a question of interest to many teams stuck in mediocrity around the league—what is the most effective way to rebuild a franchise? And barring any further major offseason transactions, how do we evaluate Oklahoma City’s front office entering the second year of Sam Presti’s tenure?

Given that they’ve been particularly difficult to watch over the last three seasons, some people might be a little bewildered by their recent approach of purging productive veterans from the roster and accumulating future draft picks.

Since most reasonable people evaluate the success of a professional sports team based on the number of wins they accumulate, this franchise might appear to be profoundly confused. In fact, with such dramatic changes, it sometimes appears that they are trying not to win.

Thus far, what we can say for sure is that OKC’s approach is to accumulate young talent to build around while clearing out as many veteran contracts as possible.

What we can infer is that they not only have faith in rebuilding through the draft, but they also have faith in their ability to clear out enough cap room by 2010 to sign a significant free agent.

What is the value of salary cap room?

Looking at their current contracts -- including the future first-round draft choices they currently hold -- OKC only has around $25 million in salary committed to the 2010-11 season right now.

So if they were only to sign short-term contracts between now and 2010—and that seems to be the way they’re going—they would obviously have enough to sign more than one impact free agent, and keep Kevin Durant and Jeff Green around, if they so please.

Of course, cap room is only a means, although some fans seem to considerate an end. In his recent evaluation of the three-way trade between OKC, Cleveland, and Milwaukee, economist Dave Berri wrote the following about their cap-clearing strategy:

"Oklahoma City does get cap relief from this move. Cap relief, though, by itself, doesn’t win games. Games are won because you acquire productive players. You can do this via draft choices and/or free agency. But just having the opportunity to select players—as we see if we review past draft choices and free agent selections that failed—is not good enough."

Berri makes an excellent point that is often lost on fans of struggling teams, who hope that cap room will change their team’s fortunes sometime in the future. In fact, in economic terms, it could be considered irrational to forgo the opportunity to acquire and retain productive players in pursuit of a player(s) who may or may not want to come to a struggling team anyway.

However, I think there’s another perspective on Oklahoma’s rebuilding process worth exploring, that does not involve an assessment strictly on short-term wins.

Certainly, I would agree that just creating cap room for the sake of cap room is unwise. But instead of just praying for a savior to fall into their laps, what if a team created cap room with a specific direction and specific targets in mind?

What if a franchise actually had a long-term vision, and laid out a realistic plan for realizing that specific vision?

A developmental approach to rebuilding

As I look at Oklahoma City’s “progress” over the past year, what I see is a franchise with a vision, a young core to serve as the foundation for the vision, and the opportunity to bring that vision to fruition in 2010 with the acquisition of the right free agents—but not necessarily a team chasing a savior.

Oklahoma City is taking a developmental approach to rebuilding their team, in contrast to the Celtics’ rapid turnaround approach. But how do we assess this team from a developmental perspective when it looks like they won’t be winning much? Perhaps by refining the two questions asked above:

First, what type of foundation are they building around their current centerpiece of Kevin Durant?

Second, how might they be able to transform their salary cap room into productive players that complement that vision in 2010?

A foundation built around Kevin Durant

Kevin Durant was one of the most highly-rated prospects coming out of college in years, according to John Hollinger’s draft rater—so it makes sense that OKC would make him the centerpiece of their franchise.

However, Berri and others have written extensively about how Durant is overrated because he’s a one-dimensional scorer right now. While there’s no disputing that, having a pure scorer is not a bad thing if you surround him with players that can do other things—and that looks to be what OKC is doing.

Jeff Green was drafted as Durant’s sidekick and figured to be the perfect utility player to complement Durant—he’s a heady player that can do a little of everything on the floor at either forward position.

However, if we look at the Arbitrarian’s NBA playing styles spectrum, it’s interesting that statistically Green ended up being more of an scoring interior player—meaning he did more scoring and rebounding than assisting or stealing.

The problem with having an interior scorer next to a pure scorer (Durant) is that you end up with an imbalanced roster—players are scoring for themselves at various levels of efficiency, but nobody is out there focusing on the little things like making the extra pass or setting screens.

OKC needs to Green to be that utility player or “glue guy” in order to become a more cohesive team. In looking at Green’s skill set that seems very possible—it’s probably a matter of both players developing individually, and establishing chemistry with one other.

There was another problem that the team faced in Seattle. Durant is a great scorer and Green can be a great utility player, but they did not have anyone on the team last year who could create baskets off the dribble—and that is a must for any successful basketball team at any level.

Durant gets the majority of his points by shooting over his defenders at shooting guard—which is why his field goal percentage is so low—and Green got a lot of points by making smart cuts to the basket, and doing the little things inside to college garbage points.

However, their offense often became stagnant because a) Durant was the only player on the team who could get shots consistently and b) they didn’t put very much pressure on the defense, because for the most part their offense involved getting the ball to Durant and watching him shoot.

Enter Russell Westbrook

What Westbrook brings is the ability to drive to the basket and hopefully force the defense to collapse, leaving Durant and Green in better position to score more often. With a different type of weapon on offense, suddenly the defense has pressure on them to respond to multiple options rather than focusing entirely on Durant.

In fact, this is similar to what Maurice Williams brings to Cavaliers, though to a lesser extent—Durant is no LeBron and Westbrook is (not yet) Williams.

Although Westbrook did not play the point guard position full-time at UCLA, he is an unselfish player. If he can develop his play-making skills, this could be a deadly trio for years to come.

This is why I thought that Jerryd Bayless was such a good fit for OKC—he’s not only a better shooter, which would be useful to take some of the scoring burden off Durant, but he also has more experience as a playmaker.

But OKC is hoping that, over time, Westbrook’s ability to fly up and down the court and relentlessly attack the basket will be enough to add a new dimension to their offense and relieve some of the pressure on Durant—hopefully allowing him to take higher percentage shots.

Of course, this is all speculation—because a lot depends on the development of the players and their chemistry. But from what we know right now, this is a great foundation for the future, assuming each player develops as expected.

And with a solid foundation, they can look to fill in the holes via free agency.

Click here to see Part 2: Forecasting 2010 for OKC.

Can The Olympics make Candace Parker the next great female superstar athlete?

Quentin McCall — Sun, 17 Aug 2008 15:07:40 -0400

Pete Thamel wrote in Sunday's New York Times that Candace Parker hopes to follow the enormous Olympic footsteps of Mia Hamm, who burst onto the world sports scene in the 1996 Olympics.

“With her resplendent smile and transcendent game, Parker is on the cusp of becoming the first international icon in her sport. She has already lined up deals with Adidas and Gatorade, and she said she hoped to follow the path of the former American soccer star Mia Hamm, who used the Olympics and the World Cup to create a global identity.”

However, just a week ago, SI.com writer Selena Roberts wrote an article about the declining marketability of female Olympic athletes since the Hamm’s meteoric rise to the forefront of women’s sports, highlighted by the disheartening Marion Jones controversy.

Although female Olympic athletes experienced a brief period of popularity after the 1996 Olympics, according to Roberts, female athletes' performance on the court or field of play is no longer enough to attain stardom.

“What's in Vogue? Fewer female Olympians, more LeBron James. What's a gal gotta do to get a little attention? Play a man, be a novelty. That's how Michelle Wie has flexed her endorsement power despite never winning on the LPGA Tour.

That's how Danica Patrick has landed on the SI cover twice in three years. And in between Patrick? No solo act has appeared on the cover of SI without wearing a swimsuit.”

So where does this leave Parker and how can she overcome the trend that Roberts described?

It might seem at first that Parker doesn’t quite fit Roberts’ “criteria” for sustainable stardom. Parker did first gain mainstream attention for winning the 2004 Slam Dunk contest at the McDonald’s High School All-American Game, but that’s not exactly an example of playing men head-to-head.

And although she is a WNBA rookie and the first WNBA player to dunk twice, she is not the same type of “pioneering” novelty as Patrick, who is unique as a woman in the male dominated world of auto racing.

However, Parker has something that the other athletes mentioned in Roberts' article don’t: she’s already won on a big stage once this year (the NCAA championship at the University of Tennessee under the legendary Pat Summit) and now has the unprecedented opportunity to win an NCAA title, a gold medal and a WNBA championship in one calendar year.

In other words, Parker is a star in her own right with or without a strong Olympic performance.

It seems as though Parker might be an exception to the recent trend observed by Roberts among Olympic athletes—in fact, it’s conceivable that even one significant performance as a reserve in Beijing combined with her pre-Olympic stardom could catapult Parker into a level of super-stardom not previously inhabited by any female athlete.

The sexualization of female athletes

Roberts’ observation that no female “solo act has appeared on the cover of SI without wearing a swimsuit” highlights the sexualization of female athletes at the Olympics, which is a barrier to stardom that all female athletes must deal with. From Kayla at Feministing.com:

Why is it that women cannot simply be strong, powerful, and athletic? Why must they be sexualized and forced in to evening gowns? And why is it that similar articles featuring men are never published? Oh, right. It's the Olympics.

Of course the big, strong men will be going. But these muscular, toned women? Let's just cover up all of that masculine power with a sexy dress so we aren't too afraid to ogle their tits.

As a result of the Western beauty ideal, there is often an attempt to portray female athletes in their most “feminine” light. Women’s basketball in particular does not traditionally lend itself well to the sexualization of athletes, primarily because basketball has been considered as a “man’s sport” due to its physicality and premium on height.

Therefore, women who play basketball often unfairly have their femininity, sexuality, and attitude questioned under the assumption that they are trying to be like men.

However, that has not stopped people from trying to mold basketball players to fit some elusive ideal – the much talked about make-up classes for WNBA rookies and Australia’s provocative photo shoots are examples of that.

The photo shoots are particularly relevant to this topic: Australia’s Lauren Jackson and Erin Phillips participated in them prior to the Olympics as a means to draw attention to their women's basketball team. An excerpt from a Daily Telegraph about Phillips:

While basketball has traditionally struggled to create a profile on Australia’s sporting landscape, Phillips’ lingerie shoot is set to help put the Opals on the map.

So can Parker become popular without a lingerie (or nude) shoot? I think so.

As Lisa Leslie has said multiple times, Parker is attractive but she also has a college degree, she’s smart and she can play ball. Plus, she's confident without being excessively cocky. And in the words of China’s coach Tom Maher:

"She's the whole package," Maher says. "She's smart. She's bloody gorgeous. It's just not fair. God picks and chooses."

Parker is attractive enough to fit most people's beauty ideal, but she's also so exceptional as a person and a player that she's hard to dismiss.

Where are the black female athlete role models?

Not only is Parker a perfect marketing icon, but she's also a role model, which sounds like pretty standard rhetoric for a WNBA player. From Parker, via the Boston Globe:

"I'm playing so my daughter and my son would have the same opportunity. If she wants to play basketball, then she can have a career playing basketball and all the doors will be open. I think it's just about making steps."

Unfortunately, the black female basketball player role model is a rarity in the mainstream, despite the success of Parker's teammate Lisa Leslie and a number of other upstanding WNBA citizens.

Think back to Roberts’ claim about the rarity of female “solo acts” appearing on Sports Illustrated covers. Well, that track record is even worse for black female athletes, according to the Women in Mass Communication blog.

I was surprised to find when conducting research on sports magazine covers that black female basketball players were rarely present. In its 10 years of existence, ESPN magazine has never had a black female basketball player on the cover.

There have however been other black female athletes on covers, mainly from tennis (Venus and Serena.) Furthermore there have been white female basketball players. Thus it seems that the problem is not necessarily with black female athletes, or with women’s basketball players, but it arises when the two combine.

This suggests that the message a black female basketball player sends is thought too controversial.

With this and Roberts’ account, it’s fair to say that the two major sports magazines have a poor track record when it comes to black female athletes. So how will Candace Parker avoid the same fate?

It's hard to imagine anything that would liberate Parker (or others) from the racialized assumptions about black femininity. The Candace Parker image right now has been crafted as the "girl-next-door" and seems to persist despite her involvement in the Shock-Sparks melee.

In other words, it will be difficult to just dismiss Parker as less-than-feminine, homosexual, or angry when we’ve known her to be otherwise since age 18.

Beijing is just preparation for a bright Olympic future

It's hard to pinpoint one thing that will help Parker rise above the trend among female athletes that Roberts' lays out—it really is the combination of multiple things. However, that doesn't mean Parker is transcendent or that the barriers for women are less than they were a decade ago.

It means that Parker is so exceptional and likable that she is able to succeed despite the barriers. And really, it's hard not to like Parker on some level. A quote from Lisa Leslie via the Boston Globe summarizes what makes the "Parker package" so marketable:

"I think she's built to be in the spotlight. She's a pretty girl with a sweet heart and personality and a natural love for people. On the court, her skills are great and they speak for themselves."

Nevertheless, as the Boston Globe’s Marc J. Spears writes, “Candace Parker’s got next”—Team USA is not yet “her team”. So the greatest value of the 2008 Olympics to Parker’s marketability may be as preparation for future Olympic stardom built upon increased WNBA visibility.

Similar to LeBron James, Dwayne Wade, and (to a slightly lesser extent) Kobe Bryant on the U.S. men’s basketball team, even a bad performance (2004) could set the stage for wider stardom in subsequent performances (2008).

So perhaps if we exercise some patience Parker will be an even bigger star before the 2012 Olympics—she’ll have four more years of professional experience, probably a few more accolades and records broken, and still have the winning personality that makes her so marketable to the mainstream.

Imagine the headlines for the U.S. women's basketball team for the 2012 Olympics: “Can Candace Parker establish herself as the leader of Team USA and usher in a new era in U.S. women’s basketball?” Sound cheesy? Of course.

But no cheesier than the “Redeem Team” that will inevitably enhance the already astronomical marketability of NBA stars Bryant, James, and Wade.

The fact that Parker is getting experience now and formally “introducing” herself to the world seems to make her marketability in subsequent Olympics even greater than some might imagine.

Moreover, as unbelievable as it sounds, the potential "triple crown" that Parker could win in 2008 might not even scratch the surface of her stardom—by the end of her career, it might even be an after-thought.

I’ll close with a dose of hyperbole from Maher (via USA Today) that rivals LA Sparks coach Michael Cooper’s hyperbolic proclamations about Parker:

"I always say Einstein was probably the smartest person in the world when he was 20," Maher says. "But he was smarter at 30. Give her time. She's going to be great."

Transition points:

More on the issue of sports magazine representation from the Women’s Sports Foundation:

In the U.S. sports media, women of color receive considerably less coverage than their white female counterparts and are often depicted in a racially stereotypical manner.

For example, of the 151 CN/WS&F magazine covers published between 1975 and 1989, only 12 pictured women of color, all Black women, and only 8% of the featured articles were written about Black women with nearly 70% of these articles focused on track athletes or basketball players (Leath and Lumpkin, 1992).

In reviewing 13 editions of CN/WS&F published between 1997 and 1999, I found no women of color on the cover and only 21% shown in the photographs accompanying sport articles.

It might be interesting to pay closer attention to Williams’ games with the Sacramento Kings this year to see if Parker is mentioned as often to determine whether there is an imbalance. However, I have never heard an NBA spouse mentioned for any reason other than being attractive (and coincidentally, it’s the spouse of an unrelated Parker—Tony).

Relevant Links:

Must-read posts about Olympic uniforms and photography
http://smartlikeme.wordpress.com/2008/08/15/a-must-read-post-about-olympic-uniforms/

Reviews mixed for Olympic gender equity
http://thechronicleherald.ca/Sports/1073025.html

The XY Games: The Olympics and Gender.
http://www.familyequality.org/blog/?p=739

(Dis)Empowering Images? Media Representations of Women in Sport
http://www.womenssportsfoundation.org/Content/Articles/Issues/Media%20and%20Publicity/D/DisEmpowering%20Images%20%20Media%20Representations%20of%20Women%20in%20Sport.aspx

Recent sports articles remind us that female athletes are (sexual and maternal) women first
http://smartlikeme.wordpress.com/2008/05/11/recent-sports-articles-remind-us-that-female-athletes-are-sexual-and-maternal-women-first/

See other related articles at the Rethinking Basketball blog: rethinkbball.blogspot.com.

Why Maurice Williams Is the Type of Help LeBron James Needs

Quentin McCall — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 12:03:14 -0400

The Cleveland Cavaliers have acquired point guard Maurice Williams as part of a three team trade that included them sending Damon Jones to Milwaukee and Joe Smith to Oklahoma City, according to ESPN.com.

So now the big question for the Cavs is whether Williams is the right type of help for LeBron James. Although it's difficult to make any concrete conclusions until we see them go through a few regular season games together, it's fair to say that the Cavaliers should be a better team with this move.

Williams is by no means a "pure point guard" or a traditional distributor. That being said, it is not necessarily what the Cavaliers need. With a player like James, what's needed is a point guard who can help spread the court and keep the defense honest. Williams might be just that type of point guard.

Creating his own offense

Last season, Maurice Williams shot 48 percent from the field and nearly 40 percent from the three-point line while averaging 17.2 points per game and 6.3 assists. However, the biggest asset Williams brings is his ability to drive to the basket and create scoring opportunities. From the Draftexpress scouting report:

"Shows good touch around the basket. Finishes with a lot of creativity. Doesn’t deal well with contact, but can usually avoid it. Goes to the line at an average pace, something he should definitely work on...Very good ball handler and passer, even if he’s more of a scorer than a facilitator. Will break his man down off the dribble and drop the ball off to the open man when the defense collapses."

His ability to create offense is best captured by his usage rate, which is a statistic that measures a player's ability to create field goal attempts, free throw attempts, or assists. Williams ranked 14th in the NBA, just behind Steve Nash and just ahead of Mike Bibby. The ability to force the defense to collapse and find the open man is exactly what the Cavaliers were missing in the playoffs this year.

Offensively, it's hard to identify a better option for the Cavaliers—Williams is an efficient scorer and has the ability to create his own shot. As another scoring option, he'll help relieve some of the offensive pressure normally shouldered by James.

A reason to keep Delonte West

Defensively, Williams could not be mistaken for a stopper, but that's why it's important that the Cavaliers did not give Delonte West up in this trade. While Williams is a better ball handler when facing pressure, West is a probably a better defender and has shown that he is a tough player that can hit big shots. Of course, it would be best if they were wrapped into one player, but for the Cavaliers, these two guards complement each other nicely. That is, if they can re-sign West.

Considering the Cavaliers only gave up aging veterans Damon Jones and Joe Smith, the trade is an excellent move for the team that fills a glaring need.

The Monta Ellis Project: Warriors Building a Team Around a Scoring Point Guard

Quentin McCall — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 05:57:02 -0400

Basketball development expert Brian McCormick has written a few articles explaining why Monta Ellis will not be an effective point guard for the Warriors.

“Monta Ellis possesses all the skills to play PG,” writes McCormick in an excellent piece titled, “The Personality of a Point Guard”. “He is quick, handles well, shoots well, attacks the basket, penetrates, etc. But, he is not a PG and he never will be. He is a scorer. To cast Ellis as a PG is to misuse his skills and strengths.”

Nevertheless, the Warriors are set to usher in the post-Baron Davis era with Monta Ellis at point guard, despite the concerns of many in the basketball world.

Although McCormick makes a solid case for why Ellis should not be a full-time point guard throughout his work, I have a more optimistic perspective.

First, Ellis has demonstrated the ability to run the team in spurts—I would suggest doubters watch his February 20 game against the Boston Celtics for proof of that.

But second, and more importantly, I think there’s more than one way to play the point guard position. Just because Ellis doesn't fit the profile of the traditional point guard who will look to distribute first does not mean he is incapable of playing point guard.

Therefore, the way to analyze the Warriors’ future is probably to move beyond rigid definitions of what it means to play point guard and look at the team they have put together around Ellis. In particular, I think it's important to appreciate that the Warriors have laid out a long-term plan that could be extremely successful, without sacrificing too much in the short-term or salary cap room for the much anticipated 2010 free agent signing period.

So for a moment, put aside concerns about whether Ellis’ playing style resembles what you would normally expect from a point guard. Instead, ask whether the team the Warriors are building around Ellis is capable of developing into a strong unit in the future.

If we assume that even half of their young talent develops over time, it’s hard to deny that this group has a chance to become something special.

Credit Chris Mullin (and Don Nelson) for building a coherent team around Ellis

I think McCormick actually put it best when he wrote the following at his blog:
"The Warriors, however, have managed to rebuild for the future without becoming a terrible team. Unfortunately, they are in the stacked West."

Of course, that leaves plenty of room for anxiety among Warriors fans. How well do the pieces they’ve assembled currently complement each other? Can they really make the playoffs this year? And what does that bring future really look like?

When I thought about the Warriors’ future after Davis opted out, I figured the Warriors could go in one of two directions at the point guard position—find the coveted “big point guard” who could defend off-guards, or play Ellis at point guard and surround him with good passers that can take care of distributing the ball.

It appears the Warriors are starting to do the latter. That’s why I find reason for optimism.

Here’s the Warriors roster for the season, assuming they don’t make any more moves:

Ellis/Williams/CJ Watson
Jackson/Bellineli/Morrow
Maggette/Azubuike/Randolph
Harrington/Wright/Hendrix
Biedrins/Turiaf/Perovic

Right now, the Warriors have at least three players that have demonstrated good passing skills—Stephen Jackson, Marcus Williams, and Anthony Randolph. Of course, we’ll have to wait for the season to figure out how productive Williams and Randolph can be—but conceptually, the direction they're going seems fruitful.

If we consider that this is an uptempo team that likes to run, and which lacks a dominant post scorer, let’s think about what Monta might have to do as a point guard.

We already know how effective Ellis can be in fast break situations. But even in half court situations, the ideal offense for Ellis would have him bring the ball up the court, quickly pass it off to one of these other passers, and then move around screens or cut to the basket to find scoring opportunities with his speed.

It would be a departure from the way the Warriors have played in the past with one player coming up the court and being responsible for distributing the ball, but it would be a considerably more effective way to maximize Ellis’ talent.

If we look beyond just the ballhandling responsibilities, we can see even more evidence that this could be a strong team in the future. If Ellis is the focal point of the offense—primarily shooting jumpers and slashing to the basket off cuts—then it would make sense to put perimeter scorers and good offensive rebounders around him.

In other words, you want to keep the tempo high and constantly put pressure on the defense to respond. It would seem that’s exactly what the Warriors are doing.

Player styles and potential chemistry

The Arbitrarian blog provides us with a unique tool for understanding the styles of the Warriors have brought in—the SPI player styles spectrum. “SPI” stands for scorer-perimeter-interior—and as you can probably guess, what it does is show us the extent to which a player is a scorer, perimeter, or interior player.

What’s great about it is that it gives us a sense of how players compare to one another, how productive they are (the size of their name) and the degree to which players fit a particular style (click here for more about the methodology).

So now let’s look at the styles of the players in the Warriors’ projected rotation, with a projection for Randolph based on comparisons to existing players:

Starters: Ellis (perimeter scorer), Jackson (perimeter scorer), Maggette (perimeter scorer), Harrington (mixed), Biedrins (pure interior)

Bench: Turiaf (scorer’s opposite), Wright (pure interior), Azubuike (interior/scorer), Williams (perimeter scorer), Randolph (mixed), Watson (perimeter scorer)

What you have around Ellis are a lot of scorers, a few interior players who can rebound, and a few players who can pass the ball well. If Marco Belinelli can develop into a more consistent shooter and play-maker—he demonstrated solid ball handling skills in summer league—he could be an additional passer and perimeter shooter. This is easily the most complementary roster the Warriors have had in years.

Although the team doesn’t figure to be a strong three-point shooting team, what we can say is that they have the makings of an ideal team to play around Ellis. Three-point shooters are easy to draft or pick up along the way and they might already have two in Belinelli and Williams.

The Maggette signing might look like a glaring deviation from the youth movement, but consider that he adds free-throw shooting, an important aspect of the game that the Warriors really struggled in last year.

It’s still not an ideal signing—but on paper, it’s not terrible either. If Maggette can improve his willingness to pass, he could become a huge asset.

But can this roster make the playoffs?

As bright as the future is and as well as the players might complement each other, I don’t think they’ll be making the playoffs in 2009. The Arbitrarian blog provides us with another tool that is worth using with regards to projecting wins—Boxscores. It is described at length at the blog, but what it breaks down to is assigning credit to each individual player for wins.

What those numbers show is that in losing Davis, Matt Barnes, and Mickael Pietrus to free agency, the Warriors lost approximately 16.32 wins. However they have only gained nine wins, not counting rookies Randolph, Richard Hendrix, and Anthony Morrow. Unless the rookies play well enough to make up for seven wins (not particularly likely), this team will not reach last year's total of 48 wins, and probably won’t have enough for the playoffs, especially with Portland figuring to begin a new playoff streak.

However, they might also be able to expect increased production from Ellis, Wright, Biedrins, Williams, and Belinelli, as each of them should be expected to improve. That’s still a lot riding on young players, but increased contributions across six to eight players (including rookies) should make this team at least competitive, if not a playoff contender.

The way I see it, this is a 40-42 win team maximum—if they don't sustain any major injuries to rotation players. That means they would have to play beyond perfect basketball for 82 games to make the playoffs in a tight Western Conference. That's not very likely, given that growing pains should be expected.

What does the future hold?

To gauge the future, I think you have to look at the Warriors’ young core. I would say the core right now consists of three primary players (Ellis, Biedrins, Randolph) and three secondary players (Wright, Williams, Belinelli). Each one of those players has considerable potential and is likely to improve this season.

When I look at these groupd the first thing I see is versatility—Randolph can be one of those three-to-four position type of players, Ellis can play two positions, and the players around them will give the team a number of combinations and mismatches to play with. Really, it’s the ideal Nellie team.

However, it's also too early to make any hard and fast judgments about this team. Despite all their talent, Warriors fans will have to be patient—the payoff for this team is to to threee years down the line.

So it seems that McCormick was right—the Warriors have managed to rebuild for the future without going into the tank. That is a noteworthy feat.

For fans of the tank strategy, consider that if they have faith in the young talent they already have, there's no need to tank just to get more lottery talent. This is a time for the franchise to show they can do something they've been notoriously poor at—developing players they already have.

The 2008-09 Warriors will have the same opportunity that the 2007-08 Trailblazers had—giving their young players experience that will payoff in the future. In that regard, Mullin has done an excellent job of buying the Warriors a three-year development window. The questions are whether they will develop as we expect, and what pieces they need to add.

Even with big signings this summer, they could still have approximately $14 million in cap space for the much anticipated 2010 free agent extravaganza (if they renounce a number of contracts).

If Belinelli doesn’t work out, three-point shooters to spread the court will be vital. If Ellis doesn't work out as a point guard, they can find a big guard to pair next to him (Joe Johnson would be a perfect fit next to Ellis). Otherwise, more versatile players at the two and four who can pass and defend would be useful.

Although the concerns about the void left by Baron Davis are valid, two things were clear by the end of last season—the Warriors were too dependent on Davis to win games, and that style of play was unsustainable.

While some may quibble with some of their signings since Davis’ departure, if you look at the big picture, what they have done is build a team around Ellis that should maximize his talent as a scoring guard and have an exciting future. For long-suffering Warriors fans, the next three years should be as exciting as any of the last decade.

Fighting Is Not the Type Of Attention the WNBA Needs

Quentin McCall — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 10:00:00 -0400

It’s normally difficult to find any quality post-game analysis about WNBA games, but last night’s fight between the Shock and Sparks managed to get attention from all the major sports websites, NBA message boards, and even local news media outlets.

With such wide-ranging attention to the ugly incident, it may come as no surprise that the reactions are equally diverse. And the reactions that come over the next few days in our 24-hour news cycle will be both intriguing and potentially devastating for the WNBA.

Really, this shouldn’t be news at all – it's something that happens across all sports and female athletes are just as intense as male athletes, so it's bound to spill over occasionally. It becomes news because we live in a society that has an endless appetite for the sensational…and this has become the daily special. The event itself was not that bad, but the publicity it receives could cause a major set-back for the WNBA.

So, by now there’s probably not much original thought to be presented about the incident, but there are three things in particular that struck me as I sifted through the many reactions.

First, it’s unfortunate that the “spirited” nature of the game is overshadowing an otherwise exciting game (and season) of basketball.

Second, no sport recovers well from major controversy and the WNBA cannot afford a hit in attendance or ratings.

Third, many of the reactions—especially those of male non-WNBA fans—strike me as unnecessarily sexist and homophobic and sadly that should be expected by now.

I’m sure the third point will be covered in depth by any number of cultural critics who will use this as an opportunity to explore dynamics of gender, race, and sexuality with more sophistication than I can at this point. But I think the first two points are worth exploring further, if only on a basic level.

The timing of this event could not have been any worse.

The league was just coming off a historic moment with the Liberty Outdoor Classic and what I believe was one of the all-time best weekends of WNBA basketball. The Olympics are coming up and four Olympians were playing in this game and at least three played a prominent role in the fight.

But the most devastating thing is its long-term impact on two of the WNBA’s best teams. From writer and New York Liberty fan Justine Larbalestier:

And now several players are going to be out for a bunch of games. Plenette Pierson, Candace Parker and Delisha Milton-Jones for sure and most likely Muriel Page and Deanna Nolan as well. Not to mention Cheryl Ford getting injured trying to keep Pierson from attacking more LA players.

I hate this crap. This is not why I follow the WNBA…The New York Liberty plays the LA Sparks on Friday. It’s not going to be as good a game without Parker and Milton-Jones.

The loss of major players on championship contenders is not positive for the WNBA by any stretch of the imagination. These losses will really hurt a league that is currently experiencing great parity. And you have to feel especially sad for Ford—she has fought so hard all season and had to leave the court in a wheelchair.

And though I am normally loathe to blame the officials for the outcome of a basketball game, it is their responsibility to maintain control of a game.

Sometimes there are a series of hidden events that precipitate an event like this, but in this case most of the warning signs happened in plain sight. From Dave’s Journal:

Mahorn pushing Leslie was a lot like the beer hitting Artest at the Pistons-Pacers brawl - it turned an ugly fight into something memorably bad. I mostly blame the officials, who had let a very intense game get out of hand. There had been a couple incidents earlier in the game, mostly involving Parker and Cheryl Ford, and the refs just ignored everything. There was no excuse for not doing anything when Parker and Ford had to be separated with eight seconds to go. At the very least, both players should have been given technical fouls. Instead, they were allowed to keep yelling at each other, and it was only a few seconds later that the fight started.

As questionable as the officiating was, the involvement of Shock assistant coach Rick Mahorn only made matters worse.

What happens when the league resumes after the Olympics and players are still serving suspensions? Any momentum gained from the Olympics would be essentially lost, even if the event is magically forgotten.

Professional sports don’t rebound well from controversy.

This is obviously a pessimistic perspective I’m presenting here...but history gives us plenty of reason for pessimism. And the fact that the fight occurred in the same venue as the NBA’s infamous November 2004 brawl has not been lost on anyone. And the comparisons foretell a bleak future for the WNBA. Bench clearing fights are negative for established male sports, so it's reasonable to believe that the negative effects will be exacerbated for a still growing women's sport.

Of course, the Olympic break could be a convenient time to mull over the appropriate response to get past this. And I suppose you could argue that since the WNBA does not have a well-established "brand" in the mainstream, the attention from this incident could lead to increased viewership and attendance.

That was my initial response to the fight because after all, “there’s no such thing as bad publicity”, right? From LSU Sports Place:

All-in-all, this is probably a good thing for the WNBA. As silly as it sounds, this will generate interest in the league and build a rivalry that people will be able to relate to and come playoff time if these two squads are playing against one another, the WNBA can actually score decent ratings.

However, no matter what type of damage control strategy the WNBA chooses, this will likely have a devastating effect on the league.

Unfortunately, history tells us bad publicity is bad for sports ratings. The MLB, NHL, and NBA all suffered in ratings and attendance after their respective labor battles. Baseball suffered during the height of the steroids scandal.

And most relevant, NBA viewership suffered after two brawls of its own – a second fight between the Knicks and Nuggets occurred that thankfully did not involve fans. On the bright side, NBA attendance hit a record high after it's Pacers-Pistons brawl.

But it took a full 82 game season for the NBA to recover ratings-wise from its brawl (and a not so exciting Detroit-San Antonio finals series). Of course, we also have to keep in mind that NBA ratings had been sagging since the 1999 lockout and Michael Jordan’s retirement so it’s difficult to disentangle those factors.

However, it would not be surprising if the rate of decline was significantly different after the fight.

But it’s not just ratings that suffer—it’s also endorsements and marketing opportunities. Northwest Airlines pulled Carmelo Anthony off magazine covers after his fight with the Knicks. And he lost other potential endorsement deals after his off-court participation in the infamous “Stop Snitchin’” DVD.

It may seem like I’m blowing minor problems out of proportion, but the NBA has a bit more latitude with which to deal with challenges like these because it's a well established entity. It's not saying that female athletes should not be intense, but that women's sports have more to lose when their intensity spills over and leads to a physical altercation on national television.

Carmelo Anthony losing marketability is offset by Lebron James, Chris Paul, Dwayne Wade, and Greg Oden—all highly marketable individuals. If it impacted the NBA and players involved, we have to assume an impact on the WNBA.

But really, can the WNBA afford to lose endorsements? Or the even bigger question, can the WNBA afford a decrease in (“savior”) Candace Parker’s marketability? Given all the challenges the WNBA already faces—including the double standards female athletes face—it cannot afford to lose popularity due to non-basketball distractions.

What to do next...?

I don’t think there are any easy solutions to this problem. I wouldn’t expect Donna Orender nor any other human being to rescue the league from this debacle.

The optimistic perspective is that the WNBA will remain stable because the existing fan base is small but dedicated and will rally around the league instead of abandoning it. And the bittersweet statement about the WNBA's popularity is that the whole ordeal may not command enough media publicity to actually do irreparable damage to the league. In fact, if the media starts giving the same amount of coverage to actual WNBA basketball as they are currently giving to the aftermath of the fight, this really could benefit the WNBA. Unlikely.

The best the WNBA can do in the short term is issue stiff but fair suspensions within the next 48 hours. I also think that some disciplinary action has to be taken against the referees and the league will have to look at overall officiating of the league over the break.

It wouldn’t surprise me to see a lot more quick whistles and quick technicals… *sigh* And those Expect Great commercials that have already been mocked ad nauseam? They might as well discontinue those right now...

Beyond that what can they do?

Two contenders are likely going to lose ground in the standings, if not fall out of the playoffs altogether in a season that was being lauded for its parity. The lasting image of Cheryl Ford leaving the fight in a wheelchair is inconsistent with the league’s image as a family game. The participation of Olympians means that the issue may linger even during the break. And the league's officiating is a long-standing problem.

In other words, there's no one person most culpable or vulnerable in this situation —everybody involved loses and it will be a collective effort to regain whatever momentum the league had prior to this game. Even if there is an initial spike in TV ratings due to the buzz created by the fight, once the "average lunkhead male" realizes that fights don't happen every night in the WNBA, this incident could be used as another excuse to mock the game and demean the athletes. Increased media coverage of the WNBA game could change people's attitudes, but will the media actually pay attention past the Olympic break?

Overall, it is a very, very disappointing situation for the WNBA and the worst part is that it will completely overshadow an otherwise great season of basketball.

Warriors To Acquire Marcus Williams From Nets: Small Move, Breakout Potential

Quentin McCall — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 07:47:20 -0400

The New York Post blog reports that the Golden State Warriors have acquired point guard Marcus Williams from the New Jersey Nets for a lottery protected first round pick in 2011.

It's the perfect move for the Warriors as fans are starting to see the makings of a strong team concept in Oakland for the first time in over a decade.

Williams was drafted by the Nets with the 22nd pick in the first round of the 2006 after falling a bit due to concerns about his conditioning and character. However, what he actually did on the court at the University of Connecticut is what should have Warriors fans excited.

He showed the ability to score and make plays for others with an outstanding feel for the game to go with top notch ball handling skills. Most importantly, he played with a confidence and toughness that has defined the Warriors' 2008 off-season moves.

Williams should be a nice fit at point guard for the Warriors as he has the size to guard bigger point guards that Monta Ellis doesn't. And tutelage from Jason Kidd can't exactly hurt a young point guard.

And although his NBA career has been less than stellar, there are still plenty of reasons for Warriors fans to be encouraged by Williams' potential.

Williams Produced In Starter Minutes

Coming out of college, Williams had a ton of potential, especially considering his surprisingly low draft position. ESPN.com's John Hollinger's draft rater showed that based on college statistics, Williams had a projected 3rd year PER of 15.55, which is right about the average. That projection is similar to the projection of other young point guards you might be more familiar with: Mike Conley, Deron Williams, and Rajon Rondo. Those are favorable comparisons for Williams and perhaps demonstrates that with bigger minutes, he could be a very productive point guard

We often judge a player by his overall statistics, but for a player like Williams, it's also helpful to judge him by when he got consistent minutes and the opportunity to find a rhythm. Williams started in seven games last season for the Nets and showed a lot of promise as an NBA point guard. It's not a huge sample, but it's another example of how the Warriors have stockpiled potential at every position.

Williams' numbers in his seven starts are solid, but might not immediately impress: 11.1 ppg, 6.3 ast/3.0 tos, 4.0 rebounds, 1.14 steals. However looking deeper into the starter numbers, two statistics stand out: his pure point rating and his assist percentage. While neither looks that impressive as a reserve, he definitely stepped up his game as a starter.

Pure point rating is a statistic developed by Hollinger to improve on the obviously flawed assist to turnover ratio, which benefits guard who don't commit turnovers because they don't take risks. Pure point rating adjusts for the actual value of assists and subtracts turnovers from that number to estimate the value a player brings to the court as a play maker per minute.

Williams pure point rating as a starting point guard was 3.89. He averaged 30 minutes per game as a starter so to put this number in perspective, it puts him right in the range of Maurce Williams and Rafer Alston among point guards who played similar minutes. That's not bad for a player who the Warriors intend to bring off the bench to keep the tempo high.

Another interesting statistic from John Hollinger is his assist ratio, which essentially looks at the percentage of player possessions that end in an assist. Again in starter minutes, his assist ratio was 31.1%, meaning he created an assist for a teammate on almost one third of the time he had the ball in his hands. That number ranks similarly to noted distributors, such as TJ Ford, Jason Williams, Raymond Felton, Chauncey Billups and Kirk Hinrich -- two of which the Warriors were rumored to be interested in.

Williams' shooting percentages were not that impressive (41% FG as a starter), but he has shown three point range (35% as a reserve, 50% -- 13 of 26 -- as a starter). What we see here is a player that improved his numbers across the board when his minutes increased.

It's likely that Williams will not see starter minutes any time soon for the Warriors and a more accurate assessment would be of what he did in 20 minutes per game like he played after the all-star break. But looking at three tiers of minutes (16, 20, and 30) we see that his efficiency numbers across the board increase when he gets more minutes. When you consider the type of system the Warriors run and how friendly it is to point guards who can shoot the three and make plays, Williams stands to be an outstanding fit.

A Small Move With Huge Breakout Potential

This is a great deal for the Warriors because Williams has room to grow and comes extremely cheap -- since the pick is lottery protected at worst their spending a 15th pick on him and that's about his value anyway. An early look at Williams statistics support his strong potential to have a breakout season if given a bigger role. It's also worth noting that the Nets didn't just throw the guy away because he's bad; they just acquired Keyon Dooling and that probably made Williams expendable behind Devin Harris and Dooling

But there is also reason for caution -- if rumors of poor conditioning are true, then consistent minutes over a longer period of time will not yield higher production. It's likely those consistent minutes will at least initially be as a backup to Monta Ellis, earning around 20-25 minutes per game. Yet in an uptempo system like the Warriors, Williams' conditioning will be a major factor.

The Warriors have publicly committed to Ellis playing the point as Don Nelson believes that his greatest potential is as a point guard. Even if Williams develops a starter quality game and the Warriors get tempted to start him at point guard with Ellis at the off guard spot, it's unlikely that he'll crack the starting lineup with veterans Corey Maggette and Stephen Jackson pegged as the starters at the 2 and 3. Nevertheless, this should be a great career move for Williams as he stands to see an increase in minutes as the play maker the Warriors have lacked.

Four Factors That Make the Golden State Warriors Better Than You Think

Quentin McCall — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 11:53:24 -0400

It was a given that the Warriors off-season was going to be exciting the moment it was announced that Baron Davis was heading back home to LA.

Summer league has brought further excitement, and new reasons to believe for Warriors fans. Anthony Randolph has looked much more like an NBA player than a bust, Marco Belinelli is starting to develop a more well rounded game, and Richard Hendrix proved to be as good a rebounder as advertised in his first game. So you must forgive Warriors fans if the signings of Corey Maggette and Ronny Turiaf feel like something of a let down. Neither have the Hollywood personality of Baron Davis, nor the game changing talent of Elton Brand, Josh Smith, or any number of 2010 free agents. However, although these moves aren’t splashy or likely to draw the fans that Baron Davis could simply by stepping on the court, they might end up making a lot of basketball sense.

Assuming they are able to retain up-and-coming players Andris Biedrins and Monta Ellis, the Warriors are starting to build a well balanced rotation around their young core of Biedrins and Ellis. As Tim Kawakami of the San Jose Mercury news notes, “...what Mullin has formulated now is a 9- or 10-man rotation, with youth and versatility, that has some money next season (Foyle’s $6.8M buy-out number comes off the cap) and some interesting ways to go.” It would be silly to expect this team to win more games, but their future looks quite bright.

As I probed deeper into what Mullin & Co. is constructing, I also noticed something about the way the Warriors’ front office has put together this team. In Maggette, the Warriors have an efficient scorer and free-throw shooter. Turiaf should bring an increased offensive rebounding percentage to the team.

When you look at the Warriors' moves from that perspective, you see that their reasoning is actually quite consistent with Dean Oliver’s Four Factors concept. If that is indeed the line of reasoning they are following (or something similar), then the Warriors may have improved their roster more than we think from a basketball standpoint. What the Warriors have lost in star power and flash this offseason, they have made up for with sound basketball decisions that may compensate for the increased financial flexibility they’ve lost

What are the Four Factors? The principles behind Oliver’s Four Factors of basketball are actually quite simple. You need to shoot the ball efficiently, take care of the ball on offense, get offensive rebounds, and get to the foul line—and make sure you force your opponent to do the opposite. Though there’s no one way to use this formula to build a winner, it’s hard to dispute that you need all of those elements for winning basketball. From Oliver’s website:

“Saying above that shooting is "the most important" of the four factors hints at what this section is about: The Four Factors aren't all equivalent in value. You can do better at your opponent in three of these factors and still lose. You can be a good team at three factors and poor at the other and only end up with a mediocre team. Identifying the factors that are generally important then helps in identifying a strategy for constructing a successful team.”

So one way to put the Warriors’ recent moves in perspective is to look at them relative to the Four Factors, keeping the principle in mind that they aren’t equivalent in value.

What I think will become clear is that while the Warriors are not yet a contender, they’ve built the foundation for a strong basketball system in the future

Effective field goal percentage Effective field goal percentage (eFG%) is the most obvious improvement the Warriors have made in the Four Factors—and what’s most interesting is that it was already their strongest point.

The Warriors were eighth in the league last season in eFG%, which adjusts for the difference in value between two- and three-point field goals. The Warriors did not need much help in this category, but Maggette should be seen as a welcome addition. Part of success in this factor is shot selection—and Maggette will be the Warriors’ best option on that front at small forward, as he ranks a little higher than Stephen Jackson with a 50 percent eFG%.

Since the assumption is that Jackson will slide over to shooting guard, this should work well. But it’s Maggette’s style of play that should most benefit the Warriors—he’s able to drive and score close to the basket and get to the free throw line. Without Baron Davis’ three-point attempts, you should expect the Warriors to be a much-improved shooting team overall

Free throw attempts per field goal attempt The Warriors were fifth-worst in the league in free throw attempts per field goal last season, which is likely a result of their heavy reliance on perimeter shooting. It’s a given that Maggette will help on that front, as he was tops among small forwards in that category last year. However, it’s also worth noting that Turiaf was 11th among power forwards and 20th among centers—where he’ll likely get most of his minutes—in free throw attempts per field goal.

Certainly, the Warriors won’t rely on Turiaf for scoring. But if he can get to the line and continue to shoot 75 percent as he did last season, he will be a huge asset for a team that struggled from the charity stripe last season

Offensive rebounding percentage Offensive rebounding percentage is a pretty straightforward statistic—it measures the percentage of available offensive rebounds that a team actually collected.

The Warriors’ rebounding percentage wasn’t too bad last season, ranked 12th in the league. But when you consider that they had one of the worst rebounding differentials in the league, and gave up the most defensive rebounds and the second-most offensive rebounds, it’s clear they need help on the boards. Although Turiaf is not an outstanding overall rebounder, he should give the Warriors a huge boost on the offensive glass—especially if he gets some minutes playing next to Biedrins. And if summer league and college statistics (3.0 offensive rebounds a game) are any indication, Hendrix—who could project as a Turiaf-like player in his first season—stands to help on the offensive boards as well. That’s a lot more beef up front for a team that has historically lacked any kind of inside presence.

And if Brandan Wright shows improvement—read: more strength—he could be a huge help here as well

Turnover problems (corrected) One area the Warriors have yet to address this off-season is turnovers. They were near the top of the league last season (12.90% of plays ended in a turnover), which is positive. However, they might see a decline in turnover percentage if they don't add a veteran point guard to help Monta Ellis handle the ball handling responsibilities. Maggette, who will probably have the ball in his hands a lot, is also no model of ball-handling efficiency—he made more turnovers than assists last season.

Ultimately, they have not yet made any improvements in this department, and may have even regressed. We can only hope that the players are able to improve their execution on offense to turn this around

The building blocks for success The Warriors will probably miss the playoffs for the 15th time in 16 years next season, but they seem to be moving in a positive direction. Their two recent signings are certainly nothing to get excited about, but what I think we’re seeing is the construction of a coherent team, something we haven’t seen here in a long time. And I think the key is that we not expect them to fix all of these problems at once.

The Warriors have made progress, getting good role players to fit around a strong young core of Ellis, Biedrins, Wright, and (hopefully) Randolph. The key now is to build a system that maximizes their talents, masks their weaknesses, and allows them to develop some good chemistry. So these moves may not be as insignificant as we think. The team has bolstered some critical weak points without compromising their ability to play an up-tempo style that will bring the best out of Ellis and Wright. When I look at what this team has done from a team chemistry standpoint, I can’t help but be satisfied with the offseason moves thus far.

The Shock "Indoor Classic": Where the WNBA Game Spoke For Itself

Quentin McCall — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 10:00:00 -0400

It’s somewhat ironic that while the highly-anticipated Liberty Outdoor Classic made history for playing basketball in a unique venue, the best example of progress in the WNBA was played in one of the oldest arenas in U.S. professional basketball.

The Detroit-Sacramento game was not just the best game of this past weekend (or rather, of the games available via webcast), but it was the best played game of WNBA basketball I’ve seen this season.

Although I haven’t watched a whole lot of WNBA basketball over the years, I can comfortably say it was the best WNBA game I’ve seen since Cynthia Cooper was dominating the league in the early seasons of the WNBA (please point me to other games that may fill in the gaps in my knowledge).

And despite history being made and amazing basketball on display, the moment that best reminded me of why I love watching professional sports had nothing to do with either “event”.

Lost in all the commotion over the Liberty Outdoor Calamity and the Shock’s Indoor Classic was a beautiful moment that had as much to do with basketball as pure human resilience.

A great moment for the Mystics

The Mystics’ blowout of the Storm will likely be forgotten (outside of places named "Washington") within a few of days, whereas the Outdoor Calamity will linger in our memories for some time. But the moments just after the end of the Mystics game really struck me.

Had you not known it was a mid-season game, you might have thought that the Mystics had just won the WNBA championship. For a few moments you could almost feel the players’ passion spilling out into plain view. And to me, that’s a good thing.

What struck me was seeing the exuberance of a frequently dysfunctional Mystics team led by an interim coach after beating a contender with the best record in the league based on pure effort and heart when they had every reason to give up.

It shows something about the Mystics that has perhaps been lost in a professional sports world dominated by overblown contracts and ego: this team really cares about what they do. And it makes it easy to love women’s basketball.

Any time I get to witness the joy that comes from someone doing what they truly love—even if it’s putting a ball into a basket—it gives me goose bumps. It doesn’t matter if they go on to win the championship, what their attendance was, or whether they are engaged in challenging sexist double standards about women (though all those things are important).

What matters is that they truly care about the outcome of that game and it’s worth noting in a society that has become way too wrapped up in the extremes of cynicism and trying to change the entire world at once.

The Shock Indoor Classic

As a nice complement to the emotion of the Mystics’ win, there was outstanding basketball played in Detroit. In reading a couple of recaps of the Monarchs’ 88-85 win over the Shock, I have yet to see one that fully captures how amazing this game was from a quality of play standpoint.

The reason I find this game so noteworthy is because it really challenges the notion that women can’t create their own shots. One could still quibble that the NBA has more players who can create their own offense (Kobe, AI, Paul Pierce, etc), but that’s beside the point.

The fact is that the WNBA is becoming team basketball at its best with a healthy does of one-on-one play. The combination is some of the best basketball you’ll ever see.

The most impressive sequence of this game probably occurred in the last minute, but to set the context, in the first half, Detroit seemed to be in complete control of the game. Aside from an outstanding play where Tasha Humphrey led the fast break and got an assist on the layup to set up a three point play, Detroit seemed to be sleep walking.

Sacramento had taken a 69-60 lead at the end of the third quarter and seemed to be on their way to a “shocking” road win in Detroit.

Everything seemed to be clicking on all cylinders as the started the fourth quarter as they had a synergy score of 100 over the first three quarters. They had an outstanding true shooting percentage of 67%, including shooting 14-17 from the free throw line.

Rebekkah Brunson went to work inside, killing Detroit in the post with an array of fakes and impressive post moves. But eventually, Detroit—and particularly Deanna Nolan—woke up, starting with their defense and slowing down Sacramento’s offensive rhythm.

Down 10 with six minutes left, Detroit managed to rally and take a one-point lead with 1:27 left. That’s when the drama started.

First Nicole Powell hit an open three off of a cross court pass to regain the lead 82-80. Coming out of a timeout, Nolan beat Ticha Penicheiro off the dribble for a mid-range jumper to tie the game. But Sacramento came right back on one of the better executed plays of the game.

We all know Penicheiro can work magic with the ball, but sometimes it’s the little things she does that make a huge impact. In a simple two-woman play, Penicheiro dribbled across the court with less than 10 seconds left on the shot clock while Lawson was cutting the other way.

When Penicheiro stopped and made a brief ball fake in the opposite direction, Lawson changed direction, got a little shovel pass from Penicheiro, got separation from two defenders (Penicheiro’s and her own) and hit an open jumper.

That’s what creating your own shot is all about—paralyzing the defense and creating separation for the shot.

On that play it was done with a pair: Penicheiro using her other-worldly court awareness to set up Lawson and Lawson demonstrating good balance and body control in changing directions to get separation for her shot.

But Nolan wasn’t done.

After two Penicheiro free throws increased the lead to 86-82, Katie Smith got the ball to Nolan coming off a screen. Penicheiro was there a bit late, but got a hand in Nolan’s face. No worries—Nolan just rose over Penicheiro’s hand to stick the three.

She’s incredible, with the game on the line and a hand in her face, she’s shooting jumpers over people from the three-point line. You can’t hope to defend that without cheating.

With 10 seconds left and down 88-85, Nolan continued to impress. She got the ball on the wing and was immediately met by a loose double team. She recognized it, dribbled around it and got off another good shot which just didn’t fall.

Smith would get another shot at the buzzer that also rimmed out. But Nolan again demonstrated her ability to create off the dribble in pressure situations.

The game was so incredible that I wanted Nolan to make that last three just so it would go into overtime. Not just because it was close, but it was so well played and well coached in the fourth quarter (the plays designed during the last minute of the game were outstanding) that it seemed like a shame for it not to continue.

But ultimately, I think Sacramento deserved this win and that they won it on Detroit’s turf made the game even more impressive.

Even if a team loses by 10, I want nothing more than to see good basketball. That doesn’t mean it has to be slow and methodical basketball. But good basketball in which players and coaches make good decisions and let the combination of individual talent and team chemistry determine the winner.

And we can’t forget defense—Detroit would not have won that game had they not slowed down the Monarch’s offense. But there comes a point when—just like Kobe, AI, Paul Pierce, etc—players reach the rarefied air of being indefensible.

This game was ultimately the best showcase of WNBA talent, new and old, that I've seen, and it didn't even include dunking or outdoor courts. Go figure.

When the Game Sells Itself

Wrapped up in all of the action this weekend was a great example of the WNBA’s parity—the top teams in both conferences lost to teams on the fringe of scouting for 2009 lottery picks. Two of them, Detroit and San Antonio, lost at home. Some may say that’s a bad thing, but when the games are this competitive and well played, it’s an amazing experience.

I may have overstated the greatness of this past weekend, but I think it says a lot about the current state of the WNBA. Already, the level of play in the league has exceeded my expectations.

The talent in this league has risen by leaps and bounds since I first saw the Shock take on the Mercury nearly a decade ago in college. These days the WNBA doesn’t need to rely on fleeting novelty or a gimmick to attract casual fans—the game is truly starting to sell itself on its own merits.

Transition Points:

In the last five games, Seattle and Detroit were playing some of the best team basketball (they had team dynamics rating of 41 and 27 respectively), while Sacramento and Washington were among the three worst (4 and -6 respectively). That's why they play the games I suppose...

The 5280 Blog had a great post a few days ago about the issue of parity (as well as the depth of this rookie class) that I thought was a great read. Hopefully he managed to see the Minnesota-San Antonio game this weekend so he can give a report on his fave, Candice Wiggins. An excerpt:

"What [the Sparks'] lack of dominance does provide the league, though, is the affirmation that the WNBA is still an exciting, competitive, team-oriented sport. That is one key aspect of the women's game that is so exciting, and such a contrast to the NBA. Furthermore, on a more short-sighted by hardly less important level, it's providing fans with some great basketball. Knowing that no singularly dominant team is going to roll its competition gives great incentive to check out nearly every game the league has to offer."

Relevant Links:

"What a weekend! Between yesterday (Saturday) and today, we had a much-hyped, and genuinely neat (I was going to say "cool" but it was hot out) public event; a televised game that felt like a closely-fought playoff, with well-matched veterans and a one-possession finish decided by clutch play; an overtime game with a loss for the league's most hyped stars; and two big wins for the two teams we almost always support."

http://womenshoops.blogspot.com/2008/07/what-weekend-between-yesterday-saturday.html

Golden State Warriors: Corey Maggette Might Fit, But What About the Future?

Quentin McCall — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 15:55:11 -0400

It was a given that the Warriors were in for an exciting off-season once Baron Davis decided to return home to the Clippers. But given the expectation of a youth movement, the recent Corey Maggette signing is understandably perplexing to many Warriors fans and columnists alike.

What makes this latest Warriors’ move especially difficult to decipher is that while it fits well with the current Don Nelson style of play, it does not necessarily fit with the Warriors future plans—financially or basketball-wise.

Maggette and Nellie It might seem like an apples-to-oranges comparison, but in a free-flowing offense like Nelson’s, where shooting is more highly valued than a “traditional” distributing point guard, it’s reasonable to compare Baron Davis to Maggette.

With Monta Ellis and Stephen Jackson just sliding over to the lead guard and off guard spots, respectively, Maggette is essentially replacing Davis’ production in the lineup. Following that reasoning, one of my biggest complaints about Davis is his poor shot selection. Maggette is a much more efficient scorer overall, with a true shooting percentage of 59 percent vs. Davis’ 52 percent.

While Davis ranks No. 33 among point guards in true shooting percentage, Maggette ranks fourth among small forwards (where he will play for the Warriors). Since they both had the ball in their hands for about the same amount of time last season, it’s safe to say that Maggette is the more efficient player.

An added benefit is that Maggette knows how to get himself to the free throw line for easy points. Whereas Baron got 5.2 free throws a game, Maggette had 9.7, good for the third in the league. As a solid 81 percent shooter—Davis shot 75 percent—that adds an extremely consistent scoring threat to the Warriors' offense. People on forums around the web have taken to calling Maggette “the bowling ball” at times and that pretty much describes his game. Once he gets rolling down the lane, he’s looking to score and make contact with as many opponents as possible in the process. In that sense, he’s a pure scorer, but he’s much more efficient than Davis.

Maggette after Nellie...? The problem is that Nelson won’t be the Warriors coach forever, as he has already considered retiring after the past two regular seasons. In a future without Nelson, the team might shift to an offense predicated on efficiency, using Andris Biedrins more. In that situation, Maggette may not be a good fit.

First of all, Maggette is a ball stopper. But really, so is Baron…and at least Maggette is a rather efficient ball stopper. Plus, he’s a scorer, not a point guard anyway, so it shouldn’t be a problem, right? Well, that’s not quite the full story. Maggette also has an assist-to-turnover rate of .97, which means he makes more turnovers (3.0) than assists (2.7) per game. For a guy who spends the majority of his time with the ball scoring, a turnover is just a wasted opportunity rather than an excusable attempt to get the ball to someone else.

Second, to reinforce the point that Maggette is a pure scorer, while he averages 5.6 rebounds per game, which is among the top small forwards, his rebound rate is much lower. Rebound rate is the percentage of missed shots that a player rebounds. Maggette ranked 37th among small forwards, whereas Davis ranked 11th among point guards. Other players on the roster may make up for this, but Maggette’s rebounding might be overrated.

Third, he’s also injury-prone, having missed 19 games over the last two years. That might not seem like a big deal until you consider that the Warriors have either squeaked in or been squeezed out of the playoffs right at the end of the last two seasons. Losing a starter for 19 games is much more significant on a team that thinks they can make the playoffs.

The Verdict: A good role player on a contender In the end, the fact that the Warriors won 48 games last year and missed the playoffs looms large in the case of Maggette. A contender can use a “bowling ball” to get some quick points every now and then. However, a lottery team looking toward the future could possibly invest more wisely. In the short-term, this could be a reasonable move. The Warriors add a much more efficient scorer who likes to shoot, and Nelson will undoubtedly give him that. He also provides another player who can penetrate and put pressure on the defense.

However, part of the reason Baron’s departure excited me is that it gave the Warriors’ young players an opportunity to be more involved in the offense without a ball stopper.They would have had an opportunity to learn from their mistakes and develop into a cohesive unit as they continue developing individually. Inserting another ball stopper who wants to be a starter into the lineup is therefore questionable.

One way to put this perspective is by way of comparison: Maggette’s stats are somewhat similar to Jason Richardson’s. There are a few small differences—Richardson is a much more efficient ball handler and Maggette better at getting himself to the free throw line. Richardson is a better three point shooter, Maggette is a better overall shooter.Maggette is a better rebounder, Richardson puts up better defensive numbers (but really, if you’re looking to either of these guys for defense, you’re in trouble).

Maggette and Richardson are reasonably similar players in terms of output. They just play different positions. So if we accept that comparison, I’m sure Warriors fans haven’t yet forgotten where Richardson led the team without Davis: right to the lottery. So unless Monta Ellis is able to fill the void that Davis left at point, this seems like a lateral move at best and a poor use of cap room at its worst.

For a team looking to the future, we can only hope there are more moves coming or that contract is worth less than initially reported.

The Anthony Randolph Project: Making “NBA Plays” With D-League Statistics

Quentin McCall — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 18:18:38 -0400

Just as quickly as the “We Believe” Nellie-Ball era began, the Warriors are seemingly forced to toss it aside and move on, with Baron Davis bolting for the Los Angeles Clippers.

However, the most important question for the Warriors is not how they will replace Baron, as some media outlets may lead you to believe. The big question for the Warriors—who have squandered every single lottery pick this decade with the exception of Andris Biedrins—is whether they can expect all of these young players to reach the playoffs again in the post-Baron Era.

More importantly, they have to develop these individual talents into a coherent unit. And that’s only the beginning of a number of questions for the Warriors, the most important of which has to do with lottery pick Anthony Randolph: Is Anthony Randolph ready to contribute this year, or can we expect most of his playing time to come with the D-league affiliate in Bakersfield? It is the development of Randolph that will make this offseason (and likely the coming regular season) most interesting for me as a Warriors fan. And in reviewing the draft, he is probably one of the more intriguing stories of the first round. After being considered a top-10 pick early on in the draft process, he ended up as a consensus No. 12 pick, according to major mock drafts on the day of the draft. He then ended up being picked No. 14 by the Warriors. Depending on who you ask, Randolph’s stock nearly “fell” out of the lottery on draft day. Is this indicative of a larger trend in the NBA? Have GMs finally gotten sick of being burned by young unproven players? Randolph oozes with potential as an 18 year old standing 6’ 10” and with a skill-set that has drawn comparisons to Lamar Odom and Chris Bosh.

However, some believe that his wiry frame and suspect statistics on a mediocre team made him an extremely risky pick. Some of those who believe in statistics suggest that he should have fallen even farther and is hardly even worth a first-round pick—much less a lottery pick. So which is it? Are we being fooled by his YouTube clips, or does he have a chance to be something special? With such a wide range of opinions, how do we make a balanced judgment of Randolph? Let's take a look at both sides of the argument -- the upside and the downside.

Randolph’s Immeasurable Ceiling: Making NBA Plays It should not at all be surprising that Randolph was expected to go so high. In YouTube clips and game footage alike, he looks great. He’s runs the floor fluidly, has shown the ability to handle the ball in the open court, and actually loves blocking shots. Despite his wiry frame, he rebounds and blocks extremely well, showing no fear of contact. His ability to play stronger than his size is indicative of a much higher basketball IQ than he’s given credit for. There are two things to keep in mind about Randolph: 1) he went through a mid-season coaching change and 2) Louisiana State rarely called plays for him or did anything to maximize his talent. So any numbers he did put up were based almost entirely on his own instincts about when to make plays and his ability to insert himself into the rhythm of the game. That is something you rarely see from a freshman. From an SF Gate article:

Mullin said that Randolph simply "makes NBA plays," which might put him slightly ahead of where Wright was at this point a year ago.

In the moments when Randolph does have the ball, he displays an outstanding feel for the game. He seems to quickly perceive what options are available, how to take advantage of them, and where to be on the court to get it done. Any player that has attributes can earn himself playing time on an NBA roster. Defensively, he’s an outstanding weak-side defender—though he still needs to learn how to play disciplined defense within a team concept. A quote from Hoops Addict:

An excellent weak-side defender, Randolph has the ability to alter shots in the lane, get a hand in the passing lane, or dominate the defensive boards.

The problem is his lack of defensive awareness and poor decision making. Leaving his man to get the highlight reel block, gambling for steals and some less than stellar defense in the post are a few characteristics of his that have left some to wonder whether Randolph will have trouble adapting to a quicker, more complicated defense in the NBA.

Though, with experience and practice, there’s no telling what he can do defensively. His quickness allows him to keep in front of smaller, faster forwards, while his size and presence on the wing can force teams into sloppy turnovers and bad shots.

With consistent coaching, it seems reasonable that he could learn how to use the feel for the game he displays on offense to play disciplined basketball within a team concept. Put the physical attributes, offensive instincts, and defensive potential together and you have the makings of a star—someone who is able to influence the game on both sides of the court. That’s what made it seem like a no-brainer for the Warriors to take him. "He does handle the ball and he makes plays that we feel are NBA plays," Mullin said. "He's a 6'10" long player, so if (opponents) play small on him, you can give him the ball and let him go over people. They play big on him, he has the ability to handle the ball, put it on the floor and get his own shot." Unfortunately, Randolph’s college statistics don’t paint such a rosy picture of his potential.

The Concrete Floor: Randolph’s D-League College Statistics In his most recent rookie rankings, ESPN columnist David Thorpe pretty much captures the sentiment of those who don’t believe in Randolph’s potential:

Big-time talent who has lots of players in front of him. He should destroy the D-League if he stays focused.

The easiest critique of Randolph is his weight – he weighed in at 197 at the Orlando pre-draft camp. Prior to the draft, there were some who questioned his motivation and focus, as Thorpe implied. But the strongest critique came from the statisticians. John Hollinger from ESPN.com levied a particularly tough critique in his pre-draft ratings—Randolph was completely undraftable according to his numbers:

Seen in many quarters as a high lottery pick, Randolph has virtually nothing in his statistical record to justify such a lofty selection...It appears he's going to be drafted in the middle of the first round at worst, but even that appears to be a terrible mistake—there is no track record whatsoever of a player rated this poorly achieving pro success.

Ouch. So what’s the problem in his statistical record? Pick your poison. The big thing that every statistician noticed was his low field-goal percentage. The Chris Bosh comparisons don’t hold much weight once you consider Randolph’s poor shooting percentages. Ed Weiland from HoopsAnalyst tells this story well.

Anthony Randolph was not an efficient two-point scorer at LSU. Not even close. He hit .483 on two-pointers and .105 on 19 three-pointers. Not too many college stars go onto NBA greatness after hitting less than .515 on two-point FGs. In fact, no one has.

Randolph is right now a lesser version of Alan Henderson at the same age. Freshmen PFs who can’t knock down significantly more than 50 percent of their two-point shots aren’t likely to become anything more than a solid journeyman. The only All-Star in the group is (Antoine) Walker and he was more of a perimeter PF.

If you check out Weiland’s site (worth a look) and look at the group of poor shooting freshmen power forwards, it seems like a harsh critique—Chris Wilcox, Juwon Howard, and PJ Brown are the best of the bunch. Then again, Wilcox has developed into a solid contributor...on bad teams.

Hollinger and Eric Doehrr, who provided Draftexpress with a WinScore analysis of the draft, also highlighted Randolph’s high turnover rate of 3.0 turnovers per game. For all the talk of his potential to distribute the ball as a point forward, his assist to turnover ratio of .41—meaning he turns the ball over more twice as much as he makes an assist—is among the worst in the NCAA.

Ditto for his pure point rating, which is designed for point guards—but a red flag when you’re at the bottom of the country and entering the NBA draft. Of course there are explanations for his poor ballhandling statistics. If you watch the games, you might notice that his handle can be a little loose in the open court. Occasionally when dribbling on the fast break he seems to have problems gathering the ball off the dribble and controlling it. Those awkward moments lead to bad passes—either out of bounds or creating an awkward catch for the receiver. The turnover problem seems correctable, though it seems to be what separates Randolph from players like Lamar Odom or Tayshaun Prince—both of whom came into the league as much more mechanically refined ballhandlers. What Randolph has going for him is that his instincts for making NBA plays are advanced—his mechanics just need to catch up so that he can execute the things he wants to do more effectively. Whether he overcomes these statistical flaws—as well as critiques about his focus—will depend on his work ethic. Of course, work ethic is something that we as fans can neither observe nor capture with statistics.

Some D-League time won't hurt....

In David Sparks’ graphical representation of draft prospects’ similarity to current NBA players, Randolph sort of floats in a space connected to marginal NBA talent.

In a way, it captures the difficulty of projecting Randolph's NBA effectiveness. So perhaps the best way to approach Randolph is to give him time to develop and not expect too much right away.

Randolph is a player whose stats are pretty ordinary for a prospect and showed no noticeable improvement during the season. He also has the type of athletic ability that can make a player a superstar.

I can understand a team falling for the raw talent and taking a flyer on such a player around pick No. 10-15. As long as they realize going in that this is a developmental pick who probably won’t make an impact until at least year 2 and probably later.

What I don’t understand is why any team would take such a player ahead of one who has demonstrated he’s on a par or above the best prospects of the past.

Of course, the Warriors did manage to grab sleeper Richard Hendrix with their second-round pick, who Weiland had ranked ahead of Randolph as the fifth ranked power forward. And for what it’s worth, I had Hendrix ranked as a mid-first round talent prior to the draft (not a star, but impressive rebounding ability).

So on balance, for a team that needed to improve their post play on offense and defense, the Warriors did quite well in the draft no matter what side of the Randolph debate you take, just by taking the talent that fell to them. Taking all of this into account, I see Randolph developing into an Andrei Kirilenko-type who is able to fill every category of the stat sheet. On draft night, I recall him saying that he wants rings and that he loves blocking shots. If his court intensity matches the determination within those comments, he indeed has an extremely high ceiling.

But he's not ready yet. In fact, the D-League may be the appropriate destination for Randolph in order to give him some time to refine his game and bulk up. If he participated in Warriors training camp and then went to the D-League for the regular season, adding some strength and refining his game, the Warriors may be better off in the long run.

Whether he becomes the All-Star level Kirilenko or the post-meltdown version will depend not only on his ability to put in the work, but the Warriors’ capacity to develop him along with the rest of their promising young core.