Dubs bench

Discuss anything related to Golden State Warriors basketball here

Moderators: Mr. Crackerz, JREED, Guybrush, hobbes


All Star
Posts: 1352
Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 1:57 am
Poster Credit: 22
PostPosted: Wed Nov 13, 2013 4:14 pm
Landry is better than Speights for what they do. PER is production and it means something, but considering they are both bench players, I'd rather have the more efficient player. And that's Landry.


I believe our bench is the most overrated part of the team. The starting line up has held up to everyone's expectation though and exceeded mine.
User avatar
Role Player
Posts: 291
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2012 11:21 am
Location: San Francisco
Poster Credit: 9
PostPosted: Thu Nov 14, 2013 1:09 am
Really.... Because so far other than hitting the occasional jumper, it has not looked like Speights can do much of anything. But if he does start rebounding and playing D, that will be huge.
User avatar
All Star
Posts: 3621
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2007 1:05 am
Location: Oakland California
Poster Credit: 35
PostPosted: Thu Nov 14, 2013 4:59 pm
32 wrote:Mo Speights has played at, roughly, 50% of his potential thus far. He's a pick-n-pop shooter who hasn't shot well in 6 games. This trend of Jermaine O'Neal outplaying Speights won't last all season.

Speights is a career +16 PER player; last year for Cleveland, he was an 18.2. Landry was a 17.5 for us. Thus far, Speights is putting up a 9.2 PER (the lowest of his career). Considering Mo is also a superior rebounder and defender, I doubt we'll be mourning the loss of Landry all year... Especially considering Landry's numbers sharply declined for us when Bogut was in the lineup. Speights is a better fit for us.

The season's young. The bench unit has underperformed vastly. But make no mistake; Barnes-Speights-O'Neal is better, takent-wise, than Jefferson-Landry-Biedrins. We still have Green and Ezeli. And Jack's loss has been disguised by Tony's defense and Iggy's playmaking.

Give the bench time.


Why would you compare Barnes, Speights, and O'neal to Landry, Jefferson, and Biedrins? You don't compare bench units by their individual positions. You compare them.... as a unit. I'd much rather have Jack and Landry than our bench unit THIS FAR. I repeat, I would rather have Jack and Landry over our bench unit up until this point. This may change if some players step up. I'm just not impressed. Barnes did come back and have a hell of an opening, but he's dwindled down since. Speights is looking yucky. Toney Douglass hasn't been impressive with the exception of the San Antonio game. The only person that I will give credit to is Jermaine O'neal. I think he must've have drawn a charge in every game that he's played in. I think he drew 3 or 4 in the San Antonio game. He's disgusting on the offensive side of the ball, but I love his defense. Green is looking good as well.
From "we believe", to "we belong", to "we gon beatcho ass!"

Image
Image
Image

Image
User avatar
Hall of Famer
Posts: 13531
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2005 10:03 pm
Location: Golden State
Poster Credit: 52
PostPosted: Sun Nov 17, 2013 11:50 am
Last year, our bench center (besides Ezeli) was Biedrins. Now, it's O'Neal. Last year our bench 4 was Landry. Now it's Speights. Our bench swingman was Jefferson, now it's Barnes. I'm comparing roles; apples to apples. You can't just say you'd rather have Jack and Landry, because that brings the starting lineup into the convo (we can't sign Iggy if we resign Jack/Landry). My point is the bench is much better than what it's shown thus far; the only bench player to go beyond expectations thus far was Tony Douglas the game before he got hurt.

Particularly, Speights will break off a two-week stretch where he averages 17-and-9. Landry did that last year in the very beginning of the season, so we all viewed him more favorably because we saw it early. Speights simply didn't hit his stride outta training camp; he didn't have a PG in his 2nd unit with pre-determined chemistry to make him feel comfortable outta the gate; that's an advantage Landry had. Don't sleep on Mo; he's a streaky player. And once his jumper starts dropping, his whole game opens up (like Lee).

Landry is a consistent 12 points, 5 boards. Mo is streaky; he'll disappear some nights, he'll drop 30 on others. They're not the same kinda player.
Image
GOLDEN STATE WARRIORS DIE HARD
Image
Image

All Star
Posts: 1352
Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 1:57 am
Poster Credit: 22
PostPosted: Mon Nov 18, 2013 9:14 am
He will always be far less efficient either way.
User avatar
Hall of Famer
Posts: 13531
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2005 10:03 pm
Location: Golden State
Poster Credit: 52
PostPosted: Mon Nov 18, 2013 4:00 pm
Nature of the beast.

Shooters are never as efficient as post-players. Doesn't mean they're any less valuable.
Image
GOLDEN STATE WARRIORS DIE HARD
Image
Image

All Star
Posts: 1352
Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 1:57 am
Poster Credit: 22
PostPosted: Mon Nov 18, 2013 7:43 pm
32 wrote:Nature of the beast.

Shooters are never as efficient as post-players. Doesn't mean they're any less valuable.


That's not true. Teams are actually going to the post less and less because of how inefficient it generally is. Most efficient players are three point shooters and guys with high finish rates at the rim. It's why each year every team is breaking records for raw three numbers.

Obviously, there are efficient post players, and thus they get the ball in the post a bit more. But generally speaking, on average, threes > Post play. It's part of the reason Bosh plays so high up on the perimeter now. Or why Kevin Love developed a three. Thirty years ago, he'd be a premiere back to the basket player and he still is today, but he added a three and it's more of a weapon than his post play.

Rookie
Posts: 134
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2010 3:49 pm
Poster Credit: 7
PostPosted: Mon Nov 18, 2013 10:22 pm
I think Ezeli was a big part of the bench last year. Sure his numbers were non existence but man he did all the little things. Also when he was in, it felt like we had a legit big protecting the rim. O'Neal and Mo just don't have the energy Ezeli gives. Also, with Ezeli, you know he was a Pick and Roll player, not a pick and pop. I take that any day.

Also, Barnes has been a beast off the bench, super efficient, and a mismatch 90% of the time. And Green is again the do-it-all and gritty. So I think when Fez comes back we will be good shape.
User avatar
Hall of Famer
Posts: 13531
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2005 10:03 pm
Location: Golden State
Poster Credit: 52
PostPosted: Tue Nov 19, 2013 11:30 am
Blackfoot wrote:
32 wrote:Nature of the beast.

Shooters are never as efficient as post-players. Doesn't mean they're any less valuable.


That's not true. Teams are actually going to the post less and less because of how inefficient it generally is. Most efficient players are three point shooters and guys with high finish rates at the rim. It's why each year every team is breaking records for raw three numbers.

Obviously, there are efficient post players, and thus they get the ball in the post a bit more. But generally speaking, on average, threes > Post play. It's part of the reason Bosh plays so high up on the perimeter now. Or why Kevin Love developed a three. Thirty years ago, he'd be a premiere back to the basket player and he still is today, but he added a three and it's more of a weapon than his post play.

Good post player shoots 60%.
Good 3-point shooter shoots 40%.

Fact is, teams are shooting more threes than ever. Chris Mullin stated this when Curry overtook him on the Warriors all-time three list; teams are developing more and more plays geared towards getting an open 3. Popp discovered that corner 3's are easy to make. In Mully's day, it was simple: the closer the shot, the more often it went in. Mullin, Bird, and Barry passed up many open 3's for the chance to drive. Curry is the opposite; he shoots 3's on fast breaks. The volume of 3's has increased and obviously when teams prep for something and design a gameplan around it (like 3's), it becomes more efficient.

But you won't convince me that a 3-pointer is more efficient than a 2-foot hook shot. Just won't happen.
Image
GOLDEN STATE WARRIORS DIE HARD
Image
Image

Rookie
Posts: 134
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2010 3:49 pm
Poster Credit: 7
PostPosted: Tue Nov 19, 2013 12:21 pm
Iono, I will take a Curry open 3 any day over a Kuzmic open hook shot ;)

All Star
Posts: 1352
Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 1:57 am
Poster Credit: 22
PostPosted: Tue Nov 19, 2013 6:37 pm
32 wrote:
Blackfoot wrote:
32 wrote:Nature of the beast.

Shooters are never as efficient as post-players. Doesn't mean they're any less valuable.


That's not true. Teams are actually going to the post less and less because of how inefficient it generally is. Most efficient players are three point shooters and guys with high finish rates at the rim. It's why each year every team is breaking records for raw three numbers.

Obviously, there are efficient post players, and thus they get the ball in the post a bit more. But generally speaking, on average, threes > Post play. It's part of the reason Bosh plays so high up on the perimeter now. Or why Kevin Love developed a three. Thirty years ago, he'd be a premiere back to the basket player and he still is today, but he added a three and it's more of a weapon than his post play.

Good post player shoots 60%.
Good 3-point shooter shoots 40%.

Fact is, teams are shooting more threes than ever. Chris Mullin stated this when Curry overtook him on the Warriors all-time three list; teams are developing more and more plays geared towards getting an open 3. Popp discovered that corner 3's are easy to make. In Mully's day, it was simple: the closer the shot, the more often it went in. Mullin, Bird, and Barry passed up many open 3's for the chance to drive. Curry is the opposite; he shoots 3's on fast breaks. The volume of 3's has increased and obviously when teams prep for something and design a gameplan around it (like 3's), it becomes more efficient.

But you won't convince me that a 3-pointer is more efficient than a 2-foot hook shot. Just won't happen.


40 percent on threes is the same as 60 percent in the post.

And once you consider fouls and turnovers and all that jazz, three pointers are more efficient. A three point shot will almost never turn into a turnover, but will also never get a foul (relatively) while post players may draw more fouls they turn it over quite a bit in the post (ten percent on average.) Not getting a shot up is pretty bad. It's the worst thing that can happen on an offensive possession.

It's a statistical fact shooting threes is more efficient than playing in the post, even going back when teams didn't like the three ball too much. Once teams figured that out the amount of threes increased. It's not really something you can have an opinion on. Landry is by far more efficient than Speights and the reason is because Speights shoots long two's. If you shoot a lot of long two's you are going to be generally inefficient. It's not because he is a shooter, it is because of what kind of shooter he is. You need to hit at least .52 percent on twos for even a 520 TS percentage.
User avatar
All Star
Posts: 3621
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2007 1:05 am
Location: Oakland California
Poster Credit: 35
PostPosted: Tue Nov 19, 2013 7:01 pm
Speights was a bad signing.

Ninja edit...

THUS FAR
From "we believe", to "we belong", to "we gon beatcho ass!"

Image
Image
Image

Image
User avatar
Hall of Famer
Posts: 13531
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2005 10:03 pm
Location: Golden State
Poster Credit: 52
PostPosted: Thu Nov 21, 2013 12:56 am
Great example of a post team vs a shooting team tonight.

The Warriors outshot Memphis, but Memphis' grinding emphasis towards the paint (on both ends of the floor) influenced a domination in both rebounding and free throws attempted. The Warriors' turnover woes continue as Iguodala's ball-handling duties increase without relieving any of his defensive ones and against a relentless inside attack from Gasol and Z-Bo (39 points, 23 boards, 5 blocks), the Warriors couldn't find the stroke without Curry (who likely would have struggled through Tony Allen coverage anyway, so they kinda cancel out).

The Grizzlies have figured us out, like we had Dallas figured out 7-8 years ago. Their endless pounding of the ball puts fouls on Bogut and video game numbers on Lee.
Image
GOLDEN STATE WARRIORS DIE HARD
Image
Image
User avatar
Role Player
Posts: 291
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2012 11:21 am
Location: San Francisco
Poster Credit: 9
PostPosted: Thu Nov 21, 2013 2:07 am
Been hearing Warriors are trying to get a back up point guard and center/power forward asap. Andre Miller is wanted. They are also looking at Lamar Odom and Drew Gooden.
User avatar
Hall of Famer
Posts: 21379
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 7:50 am
Location: Perth
Poster Credit: 27
PostPosted: Fri Nov 22, 2013 2:57 am
Blackfoot wrote:Maybe Lee, but I think it's a rule of thumb you don't trade cheap young talent under club control for depth.


Have to say it's a rule of thumb to not trade a starter, especially an allstar caliber big for just depth!

The team has six very good core players and that's huge. Douglas seems good enough as a backup, same thing as Speights, who has been rather awful so far and can only get better. Jermaine has been solid, as has DGreen and Ezeli is yet to come back. The team is built well.
Image



Image


migya make the ring fall on ya
PreviousNext

Return to Warriors Basketball

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 1 guest

cron