View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
davis21wylie2121
Joined: 13 Oct 2005 Posts: 530 Location: Atlanta, GA
|
Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 4:44 pm Post subject: Panic Trade #2: Devin Harris + kitchen sink for Jason Kidd |
|
|
This trade make sense to anybody? Because I'm just not seeing it. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
supersub15
Joined: 21 Sep 2006 Posts: 144
|
Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 5:36 pm Post subject: Re: Panic Trade #2: Devin Harris + kitchen sink for Jason Ki |
|
|
davis21wylie2121 wrote: | This trade make sense to anybody? Because I'm just not seeing it. |
Apparently, Stackhouse will be waived by the Nets and will rejoin Dallas in 30 days.
As to the trade itself, I'll reserve judgement until I see them in action. But they had to do something to counter the arms race in the West.
How funny would it be if after all this dealing, Detroit wins it all? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Ryan J. Parker
Joined: 23 Mar 2007 Posts: 132 Location: Charleston, SC
|
Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 7:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I respect Cuban, but as an outsider it looks like he just did what he said he wouldn't do.
If Stackhouse comes back then maybe some of the salary moves make sense, but I'll leave that to the guys that understand that part of the biz. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
asimpkins
Joined: 30 Apr 2006 Posts: 237 Location: Pleasanton, CA
|
Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 7:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't get it at all. It strikes me as even worse than the Shaq trade -- which I think has a slight chance of working out if Shaq can stay on the court.
In his article, Hollinger pointed out that it wasn't even certain that Stackhouse would make his way back to the team. Cleveland, Detroit, or Phoenix could all offer him more money.
I'm not sure how this is supposed to make them a better team. It seems like they lose in defense, scoring, and depth (as well as their future). I'm guessing their rebounding breaks even at best with Diop's departure. I don't see how his passing really fits in -- the Mavs don't really need it and they'd have to change their style of play to take advantage of it. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
jemagee
Joined: 05 Nov 2005 Posts: 98
|
Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 8:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
In an espn chat someone asked (before the trade) why arne't the nets better...the gist of the answer was that "because you are seeing what they were, not what they are"
That's how i feel about this trade
also...could SOMEONE please panic and make an outrageous offer for andre miller...thanks...
Why isn't andre miller for devin harris straight up better for dallas if they even needed a PG upgrade? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Ryan J. Parker
Joined: 23 Mar 2007 Posts: 132 Location: Charleston, SC
|
Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 9:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So what happens now that George blocks him from being included? I still don't see how the Mavs give up two 1st rounders. I guess I have a lot to learn. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
jemagee
Joined: 05 Nov 2005 Posts: 98
|
Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 9:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ryan J. Parker wrote: | So what happens now that George blocks him from being included? I still don't see how the Mavs give up two 1st rounders. I guess I have a lot to learn. |
Sadly, so do a lot of owners and/or gms |
|
Back to top |
|
|
94by50
Joined: 01 Jan 2006 Posts: 460 Location: Phoenix
|
Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 9:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What are the odds that Kidd's rebounding "mysteriously" decreases? I doubt he's going to lead the Mavericks in rebounding like he did Jersey. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
jemagee
Joined: 05 Nov 2005 Posts: 98
|
Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 9:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
94by50 wrote: | What are the odds that Kidd's rebounding "mysteriously" decreases? I doubt he's going to lead the Mavericks in rebounding like he did Jersey. |
You know what's mysterious? How is rajon rondo 'leading' the celtics in rebounding since KG went down...that doesn't make sense.
Oh yeah...who the heck gave Devean George a no trade clause? Seriously...that's like billy king work |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Ben F.
Joined: 07 Mar 2005 Posts: 352 Location: MD
|
Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 10:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
jemagee wrote: | Oh yeah...who the heck gave Devean George a no trade clause? Seriously...that's like billy king work |
Actually he doesn't have a no-trade clause, per se - rather, he's a 1 year player with Bird rights at the end of the year, which means he has the right of refusal for any trade. See Larry Coon's NBA FAQ:
"[T]eams cannot trade players...[w]ithout the player's consent when the player is playing under a one-year contract (excluding any option year) and will have Larry Bird or Early Bird rights at the end of the season." |
|
Back to top |
|
|
jemagee
Joined: 05 Nov 2005 Posts: 98
|
Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 10:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ah...another silly clause in the CBA rears its ugly head.
Devean, you aren't getting a ring in dallas whether this trade happens or not...why does he even care?
And seriously, when will SOMEONE panic and over pay for Andre Miller...maybe if the kidd deal falls apart? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Mike G
Joined: 14 Jan 2005 Posts: 1888 Location: Delphi, Indiana
|
Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2008 6:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
Whether or not 'panic' aptly describes these trades, I can't remember ever seeing good teams tear themselves apart in midseason like this. _________________ `
There's no I in analysys. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Ben F.
Joined: 07 Mar 2005 Posts: 352 Location: MD
|
Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2008 10:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
John Hollinger wrote in his ESPN article about the trade (which is now Insider, so I can't link to it) that when Josh Boone has been playing major minutes, Kidd's rebounding has suffered. This is related to the topic of diminishing returns on rebounds, as Eli recently brought up, so I thought I'd take a little more in-depth look at whether Boone was indeed taking rebounds away from Kidd and how big of an effect it was.
My approach was pretty straightforward - I looked at how Kidd rebounded when Boone was on the floor with him versus when he wasn't. (All data through January 31st, 2008.)
It turns out the offensive rebounding differences aren't significant in any way (3.2% without Boone versus 3.0% with him) but on the defensive end there's a decently significant difference of about 2% (21.4% without Boone versus 19.0% with him). The sample sizes are on the small side, but the 90% confidence intervals suggest there's still value to be had from the data (19.1%-23.8% without Boone and 16.5%-21.4%). The lower bound on the "without Boone" numbers is still higher than the observed defensive rebound percentage with Boone.
This finding does suggest diminishing returns on rebounds (obviously it's just one case, but it does fall in line with the theory). However, the magnitude of the effect isn't too large - even if Kidd lost 2% off his DR% by going to a team with a better rebounding frontcourt, that would still put him at about 17% DR%, on par with the likes of Chris Wilcox. That's obviously unbelievably good for a PG, and something that will undoubtedly have an impact on the Mavs if he ends up there.
Now, as to whether that impact will really help them, that's up in the air. Dallas already ranks 9th in the league in DR%, so it's not like that was a problem. Their biggest issue on the defensive end is forcing TOs (they're 28th overall in that department). If we use steals as a proxy for forced turnovers, the Kidd trade won't help them at all - Harris is one of the best in the league at getting steals, thieving about 2.5 times per 100 opponent possessions, while Kidd's rate is about 2.1. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
jemagee
Joined: 05 Nov 2005 Posts: 98
|
Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2008 10:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: | Now, as to whether that impact will really help them, that's up in the air. Dallas already ranks 9th in the league in DR%, so it's not like that was a problem. Their biggest issue on the defensive end is forcing TOs (they're 28th overall in that department). If we use steals as a proxy for forced turnovers, the Kidd trade won't help them at all - Harris is one of the best in the league at getting steals, thieving about 2.5 times per 100 opponent possessions, while Kidd's rate is about 2.1. |
I was having this debate somewhere else today about the philadelphia 76ers who are one of the top teams in terms of forced turnovers and in top 10 for offensive rebounding efficiency
Yet they were in the bottom 3rd for pace, offensive efficiency and defensive rebounding efficiency
(it spawned of a conversation about how the sixers had a good rebounding night against the griz as they out rebounded them and some players had 6 6 or 12 rebounds)
Then we got talking about the import of defensive vs offensive rebounds and 'quickly' i compared the top 10 in each category and said i'd rather be in the top 10 of the defensive categoery than offensive knowing it's a weak argument.
So i have a couple questions
1. Do any of the sites referenced in the posts above have a historical database of team numbers like this?
2. Is there any weight/research out there as to which is more 'important' (i.e. improving your defensive rebounding by X% is more conducive to winning than improving your offensive rebounding by the same percent, or turnovers)
My gut tells me, i'd rather the sixers swap and be in the top 10 of pace, eff, and defensiver reboudning and be in the bottom 20 of turnovers offensive rebounding efficiency...so is there any kind of research out there that has examined what my gut tells me? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Charles
Joined: 16 May 2005 Posts: 108
|
Posted: Fri Feb 15, 2008 12:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ben F. wrote: | John Hollinger wrote in his ESPN article about the trade (which is now Insider, so I can't link to it) that when Josh Boone has been playing major minutes, Kidd's rebounding has suffered. This is related to the topic of diminishing returns on rebounds, as Eli recently brought up, so I thought I'd take a little more in-depth look at whether Boone was indeed taking rebounds away from Kidd and how big of an effect it was.
My approach was pretty straightforward - I looked at how Kidd rebounded when Boone was on the floor with him versus when he wasn't. (All data through January 31st, 2008.)
It turns out the offensive rebounding differences aren't significant in any way (3.2% without Boone versus 3.0% with him) but on the defensive end there's a decently significant difference of about 2% (21.4% without Boone versus 19.0% with him). The sample sizes are on the small side, but the 90% confidence intervals suggest there's still value to be had from the data (19.1%-23.8% without Boone and 16.5%-21.4%). The lower bound on the "without Boone" numbers is still higher than the observed defensive rebound percentage with Boone.
This finding does suggest diminishing returns on rebounds (obviously it's just one case, but it does fall in line with the theory). However, the magnitude of the effect isn't too large - even if Kidd lost 2% off his DR% by going to a team with a better rebounding frontcourt, that would still put him at about 17% DR%, on par with the likes of Chris Wilcox. That's obviously unbelievably good for a PG, and something that will undoubtedly have an impact on the Mavs if he ends up there.
Now, as to whether that impact will really help them, that's up in the air. Dallas already ranks 9th in the league in DR%, so it's not like that was a problem. Their biggest issue on the defensive end is forcing TOs (they're 28th overall in that department). If we use steals as a proxy for forced turnovers, the Kidd trade won't help them at all - Harris is one of the best in the league at getting steals, thieving about 2.5 times per 100 opponent possessions, while Kidd's rate is about 2.1. |
Ben, your article does a good job of investigating the diminishing returns of defensive rebounding. However, did you (or Hollinger) have some specific reason for assuming Boone's presence would reduce Kidd's rebounding rate more than the expected rate -- before you checked the numbers? Because, frankly, this little nugget gives the impression of having been data mined.
My apologies if I am barking up the wrong tree here, but, if this case was chosen from among many simply to "make a case" then wouldn't you agree that the significance analysis is irrelevant, bordering on misleading? I don't mean to be a pain, but news stories which give the appearance of being research, should not simply be based on the writer running his finger down columns of numbers looking for anomalies. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|