Joe Lacob Takes His Bow

That didn’t take long. We now have Joe Lacob taking a victory bow over the resurgent Warriors, courtesy of Tim Kawakami:

http://blogs.mercurynews.com/kawakami/

It is absolutely hilarious that Lacob has succeeded in making TK and Ric Bucher — the two most vitriolic Warriors critics of years past — his tame house pets. It is an utterly brilliant media strategy, which began as soon as Lacob took over the Warriors, and designated TK as his go-to source for interviews. [end vitriol]

And now to see TK’s mentor, NBA gossip columnist Ric Bucher, fallen from his perch as network TV analyst and stalking the Warriors sidelines as Craig-Sager-lite? Forced to muzzle his vicious gossip-mongering nature concerning all things Warriors? Absolutely delicious. Life does have its small pleasures.  

It has recently extended to the SF Chronicle, which now reprints Bob Fitzgerald interviews of Warriors players as news stories. And it has also extended to the blogging community. Some leading blog sites now participate in a round table hosted on Warriors.com, and Bob Myers is taking them all out to dinner…. All quite brilliant.

There does remain one independent voice covering the Warriors, however.

Some humorous moments from the interview:

Lacob taking credit for making the Warriors bigger. Is he referring to the 6-7″ and 6-6″ players currently being played at power forward in crunch time? Or the 6-9″ center that Don Nelson traded for?

Lacob stating that the small backcourt of Ellis and Curry had limitations, never mentioning that the Warriors are still playing a two point guard backcourt. Come to think of it, NO ONE is mentioning that.

(This reminds me of Adam Lauridsen recently writing that the Warriors are now winning because “the team is built the right way.” Seriously? What planet are these guys living on? The Warriors are winning now because they are built exactly as Don Nelson intended them to be built three years ago. And are playing Nellieball.)

Lacob pointing the finger at Bogut (!!!) for the microfracture coverup. Myers points the finger at Lacob, Lacob points the finger at Bogut. These are some high character individuals.

Once again, Lacob refuses to mention Larry Riley by name. Remember him? RILEY is the guy who found Festus Ezeli and Draymond Green.

But Kirk gets credit.

And my favorite moment of all, Lacob listing the attributes that make Bob Myers a great GM:

“… [H]e has great inter-personal skills, he manages relationships very well, he LISTENS very well.”

Um, lol?

Note on Klay Thompson:

Ever since I predicted about two weeks ago that Klay Thompson would eventually be an all-star, Klay has been absolutely balling. I just noted that over the last 8 games, Thompson is the 16th ranked fantasy player in the entire NBA. 16th. Even I was a little shocked by that, and it inspired me to write this note.

Of course I know that fantasy basketball is not anything close to the same thing as real basketball. But when I scan the names of the top 16 fantasy players in the league there are only two who have not been all-stars: Stephen Curry and Kyrie Irving. (I think that might be remedied at some point.)

(And as an aside, I think fantasy basketball rankings have a much higher correlation to actual NBA performance than all the advanced stats made up by snake-oil salesmen like John Hollinger.  Hollinger’s influential PER? Currently has JaVale McGee ranked the 7th best player in the league. Closely followed by one-legged Nene, Brook Lopez, Eric Bledsoe and Andray Blatche. Baloney. Garbage.)

This is Klay Thompson’s stat line over the last 8 games:
16.9 pts, 3.4 3/gm, .466 FG%, 1.000 FT%, 4.5 rb/gm, 3.1 ass/gm, 1.4 steals/gm, 0.8 blocks/gm.

Anyone who doesn’t see the greatness in those numbers is just being stubborn. Thompson’s all-around floor game has blossomed at small forward, his true position. If he continues to be played there, he’ll be an all-star within three years.

116 Responses to Joe Lacob Takes His Bow

  1. I’m going to save my recapping until the weekend. I believe we have an interesting opponent on Saturday.

  2. thanks again feltmeister for stripping the b.s. from the lacobites. refuse to consider myself a fan (interested observer/critic, rather) because by definition it would support and encourage their hegemony.

  3. Nostalgic regressive fantasy world to obsessively re-paint a two-PF lineup as “nellieball.”

    And oceanic blissful ignoring of the detailed X’s and O’s spacing that Nelson’s vastly different iso- system actually requires.

    • TheOriginalTruth

      +1

      According to Feltbot. Over 1/2 the NBA teams play ‘Nellieball’ He apparently has no clue what nellieball is any longer.

      The Lacob bashing continues even as this Warriors team accomplishes thing Don Nelson never did as coach of the Warriors. Pretty pathetic I must say.

  4. From George Orwell, “Politics and the English Language”:

    “In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible. Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness.”

    The same applies to the agitprop drivel we get from Lacob.

    Per request, my previous comment:

    I’m trying to put the front office BS behind me and just watch the games, but I made the mistake of leaving the TV on after the game last night and overheard an interview with Meyers (wow, is he ever not impressive) in one of the postgame shows. He attributed the recent success to Lacob’s instilling a winning culture in the organization. And Lacob says the same in his TK interview:

    “I think from the beginning we felt we had to change this kind of image, this culture, this self-image of the franchise.”

    What a misstatement and what an insult to the players and previous FO figures. Did they not want to win? He also glosses over two years where the culture was anything but, for reasons of strategy and his own logistics. Lee and Curry are bailing his ass out.

    Isn’t culture something you find in a petri dish? What Lacob is talking about sure smells like what you’d find in one.

    Can Lacob not talk without abusing others and promoting himself? I’m starting to miss Cohan. At least he kept his mouth shut.

    • thank you for the Orwell citation — his perspective on the stalinists is a reason for my use of ‘agit-prop’ referring to the lacobite marketing/p.r. blitzes. the media and fans infatuated with the so-called change in die Kultur suppress other sobering realities : cohan made his stake that went into the team by providing a technology/media service, compared to lacob who did it through unadulterated market playing and timing. the real essence of his new Kultur is how focused he and his cohorts are, a preacher at courtside, behind the Big Shill. lombardi is part of the old culture, where winning was the most important thing; in the n.b.a, marketing is king.

  5. It may just be me, but I’ve been uneasy about the recent spate of wins. Much as I admire the intensity and spirit of the players, it’s a level that will be hard to maintain a whole season. Lee and Curry are carrying very heavy loads, physically and emotionally, in minutes played. Having to hear Lacob’s crap makes them harder to enjoy.

    No one expected Jack and Landry and Green to turn out so well. Lacob is a very lucky man, and I feel he—and we—are living on borrowed time.

    And with so much money tied up in the Bogut trade, it will be hard for the team to make significant acquisitions this season and the next, or even keep what it has. From moto’s comment the last post, if I may repeat it for this one:

    “landry has a player’s option and can chose to leave after this season. his agent’s mission will be to find other teams willing to offer a three or four year deal @ 5-6m. per annum or more, and force the lacobites into offering a suitable extension with a nice signing bonus. or say sayonara. the lacobites may well be lux tax payers next summer, so competitors will be able to calculate their offers accordingly. jack has an option and could choose to depart, as well, and would be harder to replace ; the team has floundered without a solid, vet back up lead guard, and obviously jack is more prominent ’cause he’s usually the closer.”

  6. Felty: I agree with you that the Warriors are playing Nellie ball by playing their best five players. However the present half-court offensive and defensive sets are far superior to Nellie’s system.

    And while I like them bringing almost the whole team to the defensive boards, I would still like to see the run more.

    You’re ready to knight Thompson as an all-star?

    He’s a good player, but an all-star? Yes, Thompson has shot 46% from the field the last eight games, but he’s shooting only 40% for the year, and 36% from beyond the three-point line, which is decent, but nowhere near the % Curry is shooting. He has not as yet proven that he is an efficient scorer, so there is not reason to brag about his scoring 19 points per game.

    Thompson does not event have a 50% adj. field goal percentage. Until he’s way above that %, he’s not an all-star.

    Given him credit for garnering defensive rebounds is virtually meaningless given that the Warriors defense is predicated on his going to the defensive boards. If he garnered offensive rebounds like D. Green does, he doesn’t, then he would have something to brag about.

    He’s defense is at best average. But, he does have potential to be a very good player. Time will tell.

    The Warriors won last night’s game in an unusual fashion. They won by getting by having more possessions, by to the line twice as much as NO, and offset their poor shooting by going to the line twice as much as NO’s did. The Warriors won even though the Warriors shot 43% to the NO’s 46% from the field. So our defense did not get it done last night.

    Really enjoy rgg’s posts.

    Lacob keeps saying that NBA draft was a deep one. At the end of the season we should know whether it was indeed deep and whether we drafted the right players.

    The culture the Warriors management has changed primarily boils down to the Warriors adding Landry and Jack, and hiring an outstanding and deep bench of assistant coaches.

    If people to give credit to Jackson free to do so. I won’t do so. He’s the last guy I want in charge in the playoffs. I wish he would just tape a segment of the Warriors winning a game and losing a game, and play it after each win or loss. It would save Jackson from having to repeat the same thing in press conferences.

    Looking forward to Lacob explaining away the trade, and obtaining both Bogut’s and Jefferson’s bloated contracts, if Bogut is unable to play very much the next two years.

    • Thanks Frank.

      Curiously, in the TK interview Lacob validates our suspicions that Jackson is not plotting the strategy:

      “You can say what you want about his X’s and O’s, some people criticize him, some people like him. But his attitude and his demeanor—it’s all changed the culture of this team.”

      Lacob is riding not only the motivation of his players, but also their intelligence and that of, apparently, the assistants. And this is an intelligent team. Give them an intelligent plan and they will execute. We’ve seen it time and time again this season, on offense and defense.

      I’d feel better about Lacob, Jackson, and others if they could talk about what they are doing and why. I’m not sure they can.

      • rgg, I posted this on the previous thread:

        Steve | December 19, 2012 at 12:45 am | Reply

        Taken from Ric Bucher’s chat transcript earlier today:

        Does Mark Jackson mostly let his assistants handle X’s and O’s, or is he grasping this aspect of coaching? Could he be another Doc Rivers type down the line?

        by Jamie 12:28 PM

        Biggest misnomer going. Mark knows Xs and Os, he simply allows his assistants to do the play drawing — after it has been discussed in the coaches’ meeting prior to going back to the bench. I often hear him verbally tell the team what he wants them to run and how to run it. You mentioned Doc — I can’t remember the last time I saw him draw up a play in a timeout or huddle.

        http://www.csnbayarea.com/article/ric-buchers-nba-chat-transcript-121812

        Take it for what it’s worth. Either you’re Felt who thinks any member of the local media who seemingly says more good than bad about Lacob and the Warriors is “a tame house pet”, which I guess would mean that Bucher’s answer about Jackson was fabricated so as to make his “boss” look better for hiring MJ to coach GSW, or you can take his words to mean exactly what they implied, that indeed Jackson is coaching-up (along with his assistants) this Warriors team.

  7. From the previous thread:

    rgg | December 19, 2012 at 11:10 am | Reply

    Wow, what a treat this morning, to have several feet of Lacob to scroll through.

    Steve, there are permission issues, legal ones, for Feltbot and/or you in citing so much of a text, or a text in its entirety. Standard practice on the web, though still not a legal definition, is to cite about 50 words or so and add a link and identify the source. It also needs to be made clear what parts of the text are cited.

    Also, and I don’t know about the others, I find it helpful to have a brief setup, a comment or brief explanation, for anything copied so I know why it’s there and why it might be of interest or how it contributes to other discussions.

    And, quite frankly, having something this long makes it hard to get to other, earlier discussions.

    ——————————————

    rgg, I’m sorry you had to start your day by coming here and reading what the lead owner of the Warriors had to say about his team, especially considering this is a blog intended to be a source of information and discussion about the Warriors. Next time maybe a recap of how the Dow Jones Industrials finished the day, instead?

    I can’t say I’m surprised that any “feel good” interview (and the feel good part is simply how well everyone and everything currently connected to the Warriors franchise is doing these days) with someone who is generally disliked by those who most frequent this site is ultimately panned as nothing more than an exercise in egregious pomposity and imperiousness.

    Sorry, but I just can’t relate to the thinking here. I’m a Warriors fan. I pull for anything and everything Warriors. I pulled for Franklin Mieuli, and Scotty Sterling, and Dave Twardzik, and Chris Cohen and Robert Rowell, etc etc, not to mention ALL the coaches and players that have come and gone over the many years.

    I pulled for each and every one of those “Warriors” to do great things (despite knowing, the vast majority of the time, that they weren’t good, talented and/or smart enough to “get the job done”). And now?

    And now I’m pulling like crazy for Joe Lacob and all his employees/players to do great things because I’M A WARRIORS FAN.

    And even crazier is the notion, espoused mainly on this blog, that finally, after all these tortuous years (with a few short-lived exceptions thrown in to break up the monotonous losing), the best ownership group that any Warriors fan could have ever hoped for is now staring us right in the face and yet some people still can’t see the forest for the trees. Amazing.

    Also, I have to laugh at the delusional conspiracy theorists here who, among many other things, seem to think that anyone who supports the current GSW regime with any sort of more-than-average (whatever that means) enthusiasm most probably is an employee of Lacob et al. Well, here’s a tip for you. Go to most other Warriors blogs and you’ll find a TON of Lacob employees disguised as fans posting daily. LOL Yeah, I know, but this is the only place that tells it like it is. Talk about “delusional”.

    rgg, as far as any legal situations arising from any copy-and-pasting of text from other blogs/sites, while admitting I’m not up to speed on the legalese of any of this, I always include some sort of reference ID (in the case of the interview I included the site from which it was copied although in this instance not a hyperlink).

    Also, the moderator of these boards should be perusing the content daily and if something doesn’t belong (legally or otherwise) they have the power and responsibility to remove it. In other words, leaving that full text in place is up to Feltbot. I’m never going to post anything here lewd or “inappropriate”, even though I imagine that any talk of Lacob around here might fit that description according to some.

    As for your “complaint” in regards (“I find it helpful to have a setup, a comment or brief explanation, for anything copied”) the interview I posted, the first (and only) line I typed was “Tim Kawakami interviews Joe Lacob”, which was followed by, guess what, Kawakami’s interview of the Warriors lead owner. What more of an explanation or lead-in do you want? I assume anyone interested in reading what the Warriors owner has to say will continue on and read it.

    And if not? If you’re more interested in getting to other posts on the thread (which you also “complained” about)? Well, try putting your finger on the scroll down key and hold it there until the next post appears. I tried it and it took all of 8 seconds. Sorry for the inconvenience. LOL

    • Steve, if you choose to re-post text verbatim rather than provide a link that’s your prerogative of course, but why not comment or provide some critique of the content while you’re at it — it’s your opinion that matters, not lacob’s.

      have no way to know if you’re attached to the great p.r. combine, but taking your word, thanks for keeping this site safe from their incursion. if any of the apparatchiks drop in and read your material, in many cases they’d consider their work already completed. appreciate your participation, none the less.

      • Moto, there you go again implying (“if any of the apparatchiks drop in and read your material, in many cases they’d consider their work already completed”) that because I’m a Warriors fan who likes what Joe Lacob and his ownership group have done since buying the team, and expressed myself accordingly in many of my posts, that all I’m really doing is being a mindless rah-rah/PR guy for the team. Stop it, this instant!! LOL

        Seriously, sounds like I can’t win for losing, especially so when you throw in at the end, “it’s your opinion that matters, not lacob’s”. You mean my “tame house pet”/PR guy opinions? :)

        Moto, I post links and text to provide a little “one-stop shopping” for other readers who don’t have time nor the desire to surf the net in looking for interesting stories and opinions on the Warriors and the rest of the NBA. Whenever I feel the need to state an opinion or reply to someone else I do so but frankly I spend too much time here as is. In other words, it’s a lot faster to simply post a link or copy-and-paste some text.

        • Steve,

          It seems to me that if you have the other readers’ interests in mind, you would select a few salient parts of a piece and perhaps tell us why they are salient and how they are related to whatever opinion you have, rather than hit us with a barrage of words that is difficult to navigate through, little of it especially interesting or relevant to anything. For the life of me, I can’t see anything in that 8 seconds of scrolling and multiple screens to make me “feel good.”

          I don’t know if this is your intent, but the effect is the same: you blot out all the other commenters that you find distasteful and make it hard for others to see them.

          The effect is also the same with your long strings of links. Some look pretty trivial, others perhaps not. Again, it would be useful for you to highlight significant parts of those links and perhaps tell us how they are related to other discussions. But it isn’t clear if you read them.

          A few casual observations:

          It isn’t clear how your comments relate directly to anything else that has been said, especially Feltbot’s posts, or even that you read them.

          You seem to have a tendency to insult people whose opinions you disagree with.

  8. TK concluded his interview with Lacob by asking about the progress of the new arena. A few excerpts……..

    Q: Is there substantial progress on the San Francisco arena? Run into any problems you want to bring up?

    -LACOB: Going very well. It’s a very, very, very hard and long process. As Peter Guber says, we’re at the beginning of the beginning. San Francisco is not an easy place, as you might expect…

    -Q: You knew that, though.

    -LACOB: Yeah, I knew that. It’s not an easy place to do business in, though better than it used to be. We have a very good mayor and I’m very impressed with his staff and his commitment to this project, to the Warriors coming back to San Francisco.

    And honestly, I don’t think it could be going any better. We’ve hired great people on our side, they’ve got all their resources on it. We’re doing all of the right things, I think, in terms of talking to the community, listening, making changes where we need to make changes, getting through the not only city processes, the port commission and all that, but now starting to deal with the state…

    It’s a very hard and complicated process with a lot of people that have some say. But we’re doing very, very well.

    ————————————————

    Q: To get an arena up and you playing it by 2017, you’ll need to knock down that pier and rebuilt and start building the arena by…?

    -LACOB: We have to get the entitlements and all the approvals and we’re working hard to do that. And the goal is to have those by mid-’14 and to then be able to start work on construction on the pier by mid-to-late-’14.

    And then to be able to start construction on the arena in 2015. We need about a 24-month period to build the arena and to build the rest of the arena and the pier itself.

    So it’s a tough timeline, even though it seems like a long time. Because we do need to get through all of these entitlements and approvals and make sure everyone has had their say and we’re taking into account everything that has been said.

    But we think we can do it–2017 Fall is the goal. Mayor Lee is right with us arm in arm and trying to make that happen.

    http://blogs.mercurynews.com/kawakami/2012/12/19/joe-lacob-interview-part-3-on-the-san-francisco-arena-timeline-the-giants-nba-analytics-and-more/

    • And here is the latest artist’s conception of the arena:

      http://archpaper.com/news/articles.asp?id=6306

      I recall reading that the objection to the first proposal was that it blocked other residents’ views of the bay. So now they’ve stuck it further out with some kind of park, all by itself, one of the most visible landmarks for miles around. It’s a perfect portrait of Lacob in his desire to attract attention and squeeze himself into SF.

      moto?

      • a slicker facade on the design doesn’t alter the fundamentals — they plan to fill in and pave over open water in the bay, in violation of the state mandate. a waterfront site is not the same as an over water site, which is their intent ; the beisbol park goes up to the water’s edge with a public promenade between the stands and the water so the public has access and the water remains open.

        the city would be happy to profit from having a state resource opened up for development, which is why lacob found easy recruits in the municipality. the basis of lacob’s dream to make billions is grabbing real estate below its value — it might not be generating profit now, but neither do the city’s parks. how would the public go for the city leasing one of its parks to a private developer who brought in traffic, congestion, pollution ?

      • I had one thought while looking at this design: What happens if the sea level rises?

      • That was released over 2 months ago on 10/17.

  9. Sacramento:

    I assume if you’ve got a front court that’s hard to contain—Cousins, specifically, on his best behavior—and a backcourt that’s scoring—uncharacteristically, 11-19 on 3s, 58%—you’re going to have a rough night defensively and your best bet is to score yourself, not play from behind, and not let them build confidence but falter under the pressure of a close game, as Sacramento usually does.

    Not having a scoring center doesn’t help. But not having starters at 2 and 3, Klay, really, and especially Barnes, who can create for themselves or others or simply have the speed and strength and savvy to drive, draw fouls, and loosen up the defense doesn’t help either. 7 Sac players in double figures.

    Instead Lee and Curry play their butts off to get others involved and maintain the score. And 40 plus minutes for each, once again. No complaints against Landry or Jack, of course.

  10. My friend,

    I am a fan so please take this modest criticism in that spirit. But this, about Klay Thompson: “Anyone who doesn’t see the greatness in those numbers is just being stubborn. ” I won’t speak for everyone but I took issue with your claim that Klay Thompson could be a Hall-of-Famer and comparing him to Rick Barry. Klay’s line that you state for the last 8 games: 16.9 pts, 3.4 3/gm, .466 FG%, 1.000 FT%, 4.5 rb/gm, 3.1 ass/gm, 1.4 steals/gm, 0.8 blocks/gm.

    Rick Barry’s Career: 24.8 pts, .456 FG%, .893 FT%, 6.7 rb/gm, 4.9 ass/gm, 2.0 steals/gm, 0.5 blocks/gm Bear in mind that during much of Rick Barry’s prime, steals and blocks weren’t captured.

    If you want to look at both player’s second years, just to be fair:
    Thompson: 15.8 pts, .401 FG%, .851 FT%, 4.2 rbs/gm, 2.5 asst/gm, .7 stls/gm, .5 blcks/gm
    Barry: 35.6 pts, .451 FG%, .884 FT%, 9.2 rb/gm, 3.6 asst/gm, (steals and blocks not captured.)

    Are you the first person I saw call Klay a small forward? Yes. Do I think you are right about that? Yes. Is he an all-star in the making? I hope so but, I’m not holding my breath. Did you reach on the HOF prediction and the Rick Barry comparison? I think you did and I will stubbornly stick to that opinion (bolstered with a little help from Basketball-Reference.com)

    • Pushback is welcome, particularly when informed, as yours is.

      I believe I acknowledged that it was an extreme reach, even as I made the comparison. You can go back and re-read what I wrote if you’ve forgotten it.

      I also stated that the only reasons I made the comparison are that Klay and Barry are both 6’7″ 205 lbs., and that Klay was more athletic than Chris Mullin and Bill Bradley. I felt that was germane to the point I was making about Klay’s true position.

      Something else you should bear in mind: Klay is the third option on this team. Or, like tonight, fourth. He is an unselfish player, working his way into a very talented team.

      Probably the biggest difference between Barry and Klay is ego. Barry had a huge ego, and an extreme edge to his personality that pushed him into becoming The Man — a superstar. Klay doesn’t seem to have that quality at all.

      But he does have an accomplished floor game, beyond his years. And he doesn’t have to become Rick Barry to become a Hall of Famer. Take a look at Bill Bradley’s stats.

      • Your discussion here pushed me down memory lane…
        felt did you have the good fortune to see Barry play in his early years?

        While Klay & Barry were of similar height & weight they were completely different body types imo. Barry was a lithe ‘Greyhound’…amazing body control, ran above average & had dribble behind-the-back handles…

        I realize this doesn’t alter the discussion, & I’m not agreeing or disagreeing with your premise, but if Klay turns out a 10th as good as Barry that’s good enough for me.

        BTW I didn’t know Barry had “…a huge ego…” ;o)

        • He came onto my radar when he took it to the Bullets in the Finals back when I was a kid. I grew up in rural Ohio, about an hour from Havlicek’s hometown of Lancaster. Watched the games on my neighbor’s 12 inch black and white — my dad didn’t believe in TV. My childhood basketball heroes were Frazier and Monroe, Cowens and Barry, but I only ever got to watch them in the playoffs.

      • You make some really interesting comparisons; like Bill Bradley. I think that it is entirely possible that Klay can have stats that are equal or superior to Bradley. And if he does, he would still have trouble making the Hall of Fame because of the difference in when they played, the unique player that Bradley was, and the unique situation Bradley found himself in with the Knicks.

        Bradley was a hair before my time but being a fan of underdogs I found myself liking the Princeton teams of a few years later and got to know their history a little. Bradley was the #1 high school player in the country, he turned down scholarships at Kentucky and Duke, he averaged 30 a game for Princeton over three years, and was one of the best March Madness players ever, going for 58 in one game. He got drafted and played on a Knicks team with five future Hall of Famers. Few players so obviously and willingly suborned their game to fit in with a great team. Still, I like that comparison because I think Bradley’s overall game is easily within reach of Klay.

        I think the game has changed so that still doesn’t get him near the HOF. Interestingly, Basketball-Reference.com puts Bradley’s chances at the HOF (from a statistical standpoint) at less than 2% even though he IS in the HOF. Unless the Warriors get a run of championships I think that is a truer indicator of his chances for the HOF. While I argue with the more-extreme of your assertions your basic premise is right-on. Klay Thompson at small-forward is beginning to exhibit an exciting all-around game that once mature, could have us talking all-stars and more importantly, how he is a multi-faceted contributor on a contending team.

  11. Relax fellow fans. There’s a fine line between being constructively critical and being haters.

    This team and it’s players are shaping up very nicely. Smart decisions are being made more so than bad ones. I’m very pleased with the results. From ownership on down.

    Given that Brandon Rush and Andrew Bogut – two of my favorite players – are out indefinitely, their Won/Loss record speaks for itself.

    The team has done an excellent job in the past two NBA drafts. Thompson, Jenkins, Barnes, Ezeli, and Green – all seem likely to have solid NBA careers. Bazemore/Tyler still have potential.

    Curry’s signing, while risky, could also turn out very well for the franchise. The old franchise might have given him max money! LOL! Landry and Jack are both outperforming expectations IMO.

    It’s my hope that more trades will be considered to up the talent level, defense, size/athleticism, and better fits to the roster. Going over the cap should be a no-brainer, although I know they won’t… LOL!

  12. Warriors were smart to dump Monte Ellis.

    Gery Woelfel of The Journal Times tweeted Wednesday night: “Monta Ellis’ FA stock is falling by the shot. Is a measly 21% on 3s this season, not including 0-4 tonight.”

    Once again Ellis has time to turn it around, however he offers nothing on defense and the market for an undersized scoring shooting guard will be very soft if he can’t make shots this season.

    Ellis and the team could also agree to an extension, however the contracts for general manager John Hammond and head coach Scott Skiles expire in late June, which means nothing will likely be offered until the those position are settled moving into 2013-14.

    • Wow, he must really not like it in Mil. Ellis is a better shooter than that unless he’s not working on his game.

    • Monta Ellis defers to Brandon Jennings, a player not as good as Monta. How soon you forget Ellis averages over 24 points a game for the Warriors and often led the team in assists. He frequently was a decoy on offense because the opponent’s best defender was on him. A lot easier to score of the #3 defender to guard you than the best. I wish the best for Monta Ellis, and only hope next year he picks a team that is the best for him. And I hope he is in the Western Conference so I can see him play in person.
      Two of the top Three Warrior salary consumers (Bogut and Jefferson in case you dont know) were a result of the Monta Ellis trade. Perhaps you would concede that Dubs could have gotten a lot more than those two. If you don’t agree that explains your frequent yelling posts.

  13. I’m a fan of the blog. I don’t have any problem with somebody using logic to question the conventional line of BS, er, I mean wisdom.

    That said, I don’t see Klay as an all-star calibre player. For one thing, I like my all stars to be lucky enough to be on the court when the score is moving the right way. Klay and Barnes have recently moved into slightly positive territory, but the team has done better when they sit.

    So, of course, this requires drilling down, if it’s possible to do so, to determine why this is true. So, I decided to check some numbers.

    Since Barnes, Klay and Ezeli play together a lot there’s an argument that this is Ezeli’s problem. In fact, that seems to be the case. Klay makes Festus better, but not the other way around. Same is true for Barnes.

    The Barnes/Klay comparison is unsurprising. Klay makes Barnes better, but not the other way around.

    So, the results actually support feltbot’s impressions more than my own. It may well be that Klay’s +/- is being dragged down by the fact that he has to play a lot of minutes with Festus and Barnes.

    • Blame Barnes, not Festus. Barnes is starting to prove he’s a bit of a black hole on offense. Has anyone noticed his movement and athleticism are a little bit like Kobe, except without the polished footwork? Maybe a little bit like young Kobe?

      • I checked the two-player comparison numbers at nba.com. I checked various pairs.

        Festus/Barnes, Festus/Klay, Klay/Barnes and some others.

        What I found was that Festus’ presence on the floor is a negative in every pair. That’s not true of Barnes. Klay’s presence makes them all better.

        Now, these numbers require careful interpretation, but the conclusion that I can’t shake is that Festus accomplishes a few things on D and gives up a lot in other aspects of the game.

        Barnes is a lot further from greatness than Klay but he’s closer than Ezeli.

  14. Felt, you’re right, Thompson is really special as a scorer, and his offensive game is filling out this year. He even seems to be improving on D. But we might want to hold off on the All Star talk until he’s consistently better than his opposition. Check out his Net 48 Production figures here:

    http://www.82games.com/1213/12GSW5.HTM

    Those aren’t All Star results.

    If Thompson keeps getting better, he’ll be a fine player. But he’s not there yet. Just as the Kings wing players. They made 57.9% of their 3-pointers against the dubs last night.

    • Some things you might not be considering:

      All players stats have improved considerably since the Warriors scrapped Bogut-centric offense.

      Both Klay and Curry started the season in terrible slumps not completely unrelated to the Warriors’ horrible offense.

      Klay’s stats include his time at the two as well as at the three. He is a much, much better player at the three, both offensively and defensively.

      • Felticon, the system does matter and Thompson does play better under the current one.

        I think Thompson has a lot of potential. But Barry and Bradley (and Havlicek and Mullin and Hardaway et. al.) were destroyers, game changers who all played differently but had one thing in common. As you say, they had an “edge” about them. All truly great players have it. It’s the difference between someone like Donyell Marshall or Jamal Crawford vs. say, Ray Allen.

        Thompson is a talented guy. But I don’t know if people grow an “edge.” Maybe. Right now, even in a compatible system, Thompson seems more Donyell Marshall than Ray Allen. I’d be perfectly happy to be wrong about that. I’d like to see him become a game-changer.

  15. Rick P: You are so right. Ezeli and Barnes drives down the plus-minus of not only K.Thompson, but all the other starters, sand raises the question whether either Ezeli or Barnes should be in the starting line-up. By their being in the starting line-up, the Warriors don’t build a lead they otherwise would.

    Ezeli consistently blocking shots and sending them out of bounds renders his blocks virtually meaningless.

    Last night, the Warriors opponent shots 50% from the field, and in their last game 46% from the field, thus raising the possibility that the days of the Warriors holding teams to 43% shooting is over. Have teams adjusted and now know how to attack the Warriors small defensive line-up?

    I actually think the time is now for the Warriors to move Thompson to SF and to trade and get bigger up front, and not wait for Bogut to return. The time to trade is when your team is doing well, and your players are valued.

    I would place Barnes, Jenkins, Ezeli, and D. Green on the block and try to trade with the Bucks for Sanders, and Udoh, or trade for one of those players, and get a third team involved a obtain a decent shooting SG.

    I don’t want to see Jenkins traded, but the Warriors refuse to give him playing time even though he’s probably to best two point shooter in the NBA, and the Bucks really need him, with their losing Jennings next year

    Felty: You’ve down a great job convincing everyone that K.Thompson is better playing the SF position, rather then SG.

  16. Somebody agreed with me? That’s different.

    I’m always suspicious of players with consistently poor +/-.

    Jenkins plays 10% of the minutes and is -9.9. To me it seems that he looks like a player only if you don’t look too deeply. He was even worse last season (although that was a losing team). Still, of all the players Jenkins’ +/- was closest to Gladness’.

    • It would be interesting for Jackson to experiment with Jenkins a little bit more. Remember when CJ Watson was the primary scorer off the bench for the Warriors? His jump shot was automatic and sometimes he would shoot the dubs back into the game. I’d like to see if Jenkins could be a similar player.

      I think he shows a lack of interest and athleticism when he doesn’t have the ball. I think that will change as he becomes a veteran. Give it one more year with this guy. He can really fill it up on the offensive end, so you can’t get rid of him. Also, if Jack signs elsewhere next year, he could be a valuable piece.

  17. @7

    rgg | December 20, 2012 at 11:21 am | Reply

    Steve,

    It seems to me that if you have the other readers’ interests in mind, you would select a few salient parts of a piece and perhaps tell us why they are salient and how they are related to whatever opinion you have, rather than hit us with a barrage of words that is difficult to navigate through, little of it especially interesting or relevant to anything. For the life of me, I can’t see anything in that 8 seconds of scrolling and multiple screens to make me “feel good.”

    rgg, I’ll try my best to keep from “insulting” you here, but keep in mind that since your response consisted of a lot of confusing remarks that to me made absolutely no sense whatsoever, this will not be easy.

    First, you refer to Lacob’s interview I posted by saying “a barrage of words that is difficult to navigate through, little of it especially interesting or relevant to anything”. Huh?

    rgg, here’s just one of the question and answer segments of the interview, or shall we say “barrage of words/little of it especially interesting or relevant to anything”:

    -Q: What’s the situation with Bogut now? Does he have to figure out how to adapt to his situation? Can he get significantly better in the next week, two weeks, three weeks? Or is it possible he doesn’t come back at all this season?

    -LACOB: I don’t know the answer to that in totality. I will say everything I’m told is that he’s progressing well and that he will be ready to play at some point in the season and hopefully not too much further in the season.

    We’re not in the game of predicting any more (laughs) after what happened this year. He was cleared to play by the doctors for opening day and he personally cleared himself, said he felt good.

    So that’s not our choice. He played. And unfortunately, didn’t work out. He felt things that he had not hoped that he would feel, did not feel 100%, couldn’t explode off that ankle and shut himself down.

    We basically have done what we’ve had to do, which is: Tell us when you’re ready.

    I give credit to the coaching staff and the players, they’re just moving on, moving forward. He comes back, he comes back, when he comes back he comes back. They’ve got a job to do and they’ve done a great job.

    —————————————

    From where I sit, the current and future health of Andrew Bogut is one of the most “interesting” and “relevant” topics of discussion imaginable, not to mention the rest of the interview that was about one thing, and one thing only, the Warriors. How in the world, on a blog devoted to Warriors basketball, is the current owner talking about his team nothing more than “a barrage of words/little of it especially interesting or relevant to anything”?

    I don’t know if this is your intent, but the effect is the same: you blot out all the other commenters that you find distasteful and make it hard for others to see them.

    I have no idea what you’re talking about. Anyone else? Am I somehow “blotting out” other posts? Making it “hard for others to see them”? rgg, have you ever noticed how each post is numbered? If you don’t want to read post #3 than scroll down until post #4 appears. WooHoo, it ain’t that difficult, nor can I “blot out” post #whatever so you or anyone else can’t see/read it.

    The effect is also the same with your long strings of links. Some look pretty trivial, others perhaps not. Again, it would be useful for you to highlight significant parts of those links and perhaps tell us how they are related to other discussions. But it isn’t clear if you read them.

    rgg, just taking last night’s links that I posted, the first was more on Lacob’s interview (the Warriors new arena update), which you even responded to (apparently your navigational and reading difficulties on this thread suddenly/momentarily cleared up), followed by 5 links directly related to last night’s Warriors/Kings game (two game recaps/stories and 3 video/audio links, all clearly ID’d), followed by an ESPN story on the current plight of the Milwaukee Bucks (and Monta Ellis), followed by a ESPN radio interview with Jerry West, and finally an SI.com story about possible NBA trade targets.

    So, I guess if you had no interest in last night’s game, or what Jerry West has to say these days, or about the projected new arena for SF and the Warriors, then I guess you could say the links I posted were indeed “trivial”. As for how they would be related to other discussions on this site? Really?

    A few casual observations:

    It isn’t clear how your comments relate directly to anything else that has been said, especially Feltbot’s posts, or even that you read them.

    No, I never read or respond to any of Feltbot’s posts.

    You seem to have a tendency to insult people whose opinions you disagree with.

    I (sometimes) respond to the opinions of others, and pretty much always to those who respond to what I have to say. “Insult people”? rgg, you seem to belong to the thin-skinned club on this site. Are you talking about my sarcasm (“Next time maybe a recap of how the Dow Jones Industrials finished the day, instead?”)? Well, in this case, the way I look at it, one sarcastic remark deserves another, or did you not say, “Wow, what a treat this morning, to have several feet of Lacob to scroll through.”? Unless, of course, you actually enjoyed reading that “feel good” interview of Joe Lacob, which was really your problem, and your only problem, which ultimately lead to all of this “nonsensical whining” about things that made no sense AT ALL.

    Insults? Cry me a river.

    P.S. To everyone else who frequents this site, as I’ve said before, if you’d rather I not post links about the Warriors/NBA just say so and I’ll stop. Poor rgg seems to be disheveled by all the links yet I know one person (Brytex) you enjoys all the info. I have no idea what others prefer so please speak up if you care one way or the other. Maybe the real “relevancy” in all this is the size of Felt’s readership, which is a good topic for another day.

    • I was afraid this would happen. You’ve just cluttered up over a third of this thread with a discussion that is incoherent and nobody cares about.

      “No, I never read or respond to any of Feltbot’s posts.”

      Then why on earth are you here?

      And I’m ducking out of this. My apologies to others.

    • Steve, I’m sure we all appreciate all the links and no one wants to discourage you from participating here, but in the last 6 months rgg is at least the 3rd commenter to ask you to scale back the re-posting somewhat.

      In addition, you’re probably the only one who enjoys your insults to other people on this blog. rgg made a simple request. You escalated it to a pissing contest, THEN asked if others agreed with him. That’s how it reads, anyhow.

      Play with us, but play nice, OK?

  18. Regarding the discussion of post format, here’s my two cents: I believe that Adam asked one or two posters on his blog to watch the length of their posts, and I think that is a reasonable request. Shorter posts are easier to grasp and respond to, and encourage the discussion. Thus the Bard: “Brevity is the soul of wit.”

    As to reposting of articles and interviews, again, excerpting is preferable to posting the whole thing, and either way it is respectful to the author that a link be included. Everyone here is capable of hitting the links that interest them.

    Hope this is helpful.

    • Felt, no problem, even though, to be honest, there’s not enough (posting) traffic here where length of posts should really matter. Earlier tonight I was over at AL’s site and there were around 180 posts that had been logged in just over 24 hrs. Here? Far, far fewer, and if you subtract my posts, substantially fewer still.

      Any site with a lot of traffic will always have a mixture of length, with some one-liners, some “novels”, and the rest somewhere in the middle, and that’s certainly the case over at “Fast Break”.

      Sometimes I can get lengthy but only to make sure I include all my thoughts on whatever I’m typing. If you think about how much text is in the transcript of a (literal) 5 minute conversation, it would definitely translate into a fairly lengthy blog post. I’ve never considered any long email or blog something to avoid or to frown at, with content always being the most important element in the end.

      Nice talking to you. Since I’m here, maybe I’ll start reading your posts in the future, and maybe even respond to a few here and there. LOL

      • And speaking of AL’s site, I posted this last night after the Warriors/Kings game:

        Steve says:
        December 20th, 2012 at 3:13 am

        23..
        A lot of analysis paralysis going on here tonight. The Kings won because they shot lights-out from 22-25 ft. Congrats Sactown, but in the end you’re still just a bunch of good players who seldom play like a team, and led by a center who’s incredibly gifted athletically but not so much mentally. Good luck in the lottery.

        The only numbers that mean anything to me right now regarding GSW are 17, 26, 10 and 16. That’s 17 wins in 26 games, and 10 wins in 16 road games. Those numbers are WAY over the top for a team rebuilding (one of the younger teams in the NBA) and learning to play with each other on the fly, all the while absent their very good, and currently rehabbing, center.

        Much more meaningful to me than these group praisings or bashings over each passing game is quarterly analysis where a true gauge on a team’s improvement/decline, strengths/weaknesses and overall outlook going forward to the next quarter mark can be ascertained with some degree of realistic accuracy.

        Tomorrow (next game) the matchups and coaching will be different, the hot hands will likely change, the refs will either be better or worse, and a certain degree of angst will still be there, win or lose. Just the way it is along the 82 steps of an NBA season.

        Personally, I’ll wait till game #40 to make my next read on this team, but without question, so far, these guys get a big A+ from me. And if Bogut can be back and completely healthy for the last two quarters of the season, THEN we’re talking some serious analytical opportunities for the stretch run. Go Dubs!

  19. I’d guess after reading/watching this that Nash won’t play Saturday night. Even if he does he probably won’t play very many minutes. He mentioned the word “pain” a lot in the video. Not sounding too great if you’re a Lakers fan depending on a healthy Nash this season, especially someone dealing with a problem like this at such an advanced age for a pro athlete.

    http://lat.ms/VUurTa

  20. The Playlist Vol 5 (Some highlights from recent Warriors games)

  21. “Deron Williams resting on his laurels – and fat wallet” (Never could understand the hype about this guy? Always overrated in my book)

    http://www.nj.com/ledger-dalessandro/index.ssf/2012/12/dalessandro_deron_williams_holding_on_too_tight.html

  22. Donald Sterling, the weirdo owner? LOL I guess for that loser that’s about as good as it gets……I mean, would you rather be called a weirdo or a loser?

    LAC has a better record than I thought they would at this stage, but in retrospect the fact that they have a lot of older, veteran players makes this somewhat less surprising. I’m still not a believer in the bigger picture. This team wreaks of a really good regular season team that will implode early in the postseason.

    http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nba-ball-dont-lie/donald-sterling-celebrates-clippers-franchise-best-tying-winning-194603896–nba.html

  23. Rich P: Jenkins is a terrific shooter. Unfortunately, averaging less than six minutes of playing time and taking only two shots during his short time on the court, plus playing with mostly bench players, the Warriors are often outscored when Jenkins was on the court. That helps explain why the team’s minus rating when he is on the court is both high and virtually meaningless. It’s also a call for him to play more with a better cast, and shoot more often.

    I would like to see Barnes moved from the starting line-up and Thompson moved to SF, with Jack and Curry starting, and Jenkins backing up for Jack, and Curry at times.

    Jenkins is just the opposite of Udoh, who put up poor individual stats for the Warriors the last two years, yet was an impact player as the Warriors outscored their opponents by a significant margin with him on the court, and explains why he had a very positive rating.

    The plus-minus stat is just the beginning for an analyzing how the team performed with a particular player. Sometimes it has significant meaning, other times, not so.

    With Jenkins playing so few minutes per game with most bench players, it has virtually no significance.

    • I agree with most of that.

      The part that bothers me is that Jenkins wasn’t good last season either. But, I understand that “good” may have a different meaning in a half-season long tank job.

      I understand that he can shoot. I’m not convinced he’s a sufficiently well rounded player. But, we may very well see a lot of him this season. We’ll find out.

    • This has to be worth a shot. The team is going to need a strong second unit putting in more minutes to make it through the season. There are a lot of other combinations that might be tried as well so Jack and Curry aren’t logging in too many minutes.

      But also if Barnes has any potential, it needs to be developed, and he’d have a better chance on the second unit. Does anybody know his 1st quarter performance? My impression is not much.

      Jenkins is a yeoman guard who did much right during the tank.

  24. Somewhat in anticipation of tonight’s game, but more a thought on statistics—

    I found Mike Dunlap attractive last summer largely from a quick glimpse. He looked sharp and aggressive. But apparently he is a stat phreak:

    “Basically, the Bobcats compiled their own advanced statistics during preseason games. Dunlap here references a deflection chart. Deflections can essentially be any tip of the ball from its assumed trajectory: dribble deflections, rebound deflections, shot deflections, whatever — although there is no agreed-upon standardized definition, so take that for what you will. From there they somehow devised a way to compile each player’s defensive activity from these charts and built the starting five from that.”

    http://www.rufusonfire.com/2012/10/31/3582218/mike-dunlap-names-bobcats-starting-five-using-defensive-models

    The problem may be the players he has to work with, but this strategy might as easily explain his stuttering offense. It looks like he might be taking his scorers off the table.

    We resort to statistics because we want to point to something objective, but I question most of them. Any stat that evaluates an individual player without considering how he is used in a system and how long or what system is used is meaningless. Reggie Williams’ value as a player in Nelson’s team was large, in the other teams since, negligible.

    Any stat that tries to evaluate a whole team without considering the individual factors of the roster—available talent, particular skills, or injuries—is just as dubious. People have been criticizing Nelson and Smart’s teams without looking at their rosters and all the problems they had. Also, such stats won’t tell us how one team might perform in another system, where the numbers might be higher. And any stat that isolates one aspect, say defense, to the exclusion of the overall scheme and the ultimate goal, i.e. winning, is just as suspect. What good is a defensive scheme if you can’t score enough points and have to spend the game trying to catch up with your opponent, perhaps getting demoralized in the process?

    Most I question organizations that build coaching and rosters and plays around stats. Ignored is a coach’s intuitive feel and experience, his close knowledge on the floor of players and the game.

    But stats may be the future. From the Sloan Conference site—and our FO attends these conferences religiously:

    “SSAC is a ‘Game Changer’ – the impact this conference has had in how decisions get made in our industry, on and off the field, has been nothing short of revolutionary. Many of the topics that were presented, debated, and analyzed during the first six years of this conference have led to an evolution in analytics-based decision-making that is now utilized by most team’s front offices and has also become part of the lexicon used by broadcasters, writers, and fans.”

    http://www.sloansportsconference.com/?p=8948

    If teams do move in this direction, we’ll never know what might have been under different systems because they were never tried. But I’m sure the stat hounds will come up with more stats to prove they are right.

    Churchill:

    “Statistics are like a drunk with a lampost: used more for support than illumination.”

    Sheesh. I’ve quoted two of my least favorite figures in one day.

    • Hey, I love Churchill!

      Disapproving Countess #1: “Sir, you are drunk.”

      Churchill: “Madam, I may be drunk, but you are ugly, and I shall be sober in the morning.”

      Disapproving Countess #2: “Winston, if you were my husband, I’d poison your tea!”

      Churchill: “Madam, if you were my wife, I’d drink it!”

      Bernard Shaw: “Here are two tickets to the opening night of my latest play. Bring a friend, if you have one.”

      Churchill (returning the tickets): “Impossible to come to first night. Will come to second night, if you have one.”

      Otherwise +1. Another moronic Bobcats hire. I read that Jordan has already met with the players to quell their disgruntlement.

  25. Geez, that Sloan site is scary. Re Barnes, here’s a link to a video entitled “Developing the Athlete’s Brand”:

    http://www.sloansportsconference.com/?p=716

    One panelist noted that developing a personality for an athlete is as important as his skill set.

    I’ve a feeling we’re not in Kansas anymore.

  26. Rich P. Rgg is right. Jenkins demonstrated last year that when given plenty of playing time, he could dish out assists better than even Curry, and could score a ton of points. But, he needs to be playing on a running team where he would be quite productive. His hard work has produced terrific results. I doubt that he is going to be life long back-up. I surely would rather have Jenkins as my starter over the Buck’s Jennings.

    Barnes will not be good until he is able to shoot the ball with the same motion consistently. The fact that he is shooting less than 70% from the foul-line demonstrates that his shooting stroke is fundamentally flawed. He should not be starting and should have to earn being with the second unit. He should be traded.

    D. Green bails himself out by garnering 4 offensive rebounds, resulting in four additional possessions for the Warriors, while shooting 0-5 from the field. The fact the Warriors outscore their opponents by a slight margin is the testament to his defense, but he will not have much of a career if he cannot bring his shooting % to above 45%, He’s been shooting at below 30%.Ouch. We surely could add a player that produce more on both sides of the ball.

    The Warriors should do slightly better if Bogut returns healthy, and is able to play over 25 minutes per game. That should not occur until after he plays at least 20 games on a part-time basis. It will be interesting to see if he is ever playing in the fourth quarter this year.

    • Frank, I hope you think I’m a nice guy cause believe it or not I am. :) Now, back to talkin’ Warriors hoops.

      I’m a fan of HBarnes and unlike yourself don’t think he should be traded. I agree that his offense has been inconsistent but that’s been a product, IMO, of two things: (1) The coaches run far more plays for Lee, Curry and Thompson amongst the starters, and when you add the names Jack and Landry to the mix, it all adds up to the old saying of there being only one ball to go around, and (2) Barnes, a 26 game rookie and only 20 yrs old, is simply deferring to others, through (both play calls and) personal choice. His day to shine more brightly in the Warriors offense will come, but probably not for awhile.

      His shooting technique doesn’t worry me at this early stage. He supposedly works very hard on his game and anything that needs work I’m sure will be addressed by both the coaching staff and his own desire to study film and improve his game.

      Rick Barry’s name has come up lately, and when talking about shooting acumen at a young age I remember Barry being mostly a slasher and driver out of college with a not-so-great outside jumper. Only later in his career did his outside shot improve which obviously completed his repertoire and led to his overall greatness as a player.

      Draymond Green, I believe, will turn out to be a more-than-adequate offensive player, but also like Barnes current situation, he’s just being asked to contribute more in other ways right now.

      In Summer League he shot threes very well, and his shooting form belies his current numbers (even though I admit he sometimes throws up a real “brick-of-a-shot”), IMO. Another player who’s offensive game I think will become more apparent and beneficial to the team in the future, just not now.

      ABogut, even without the benefit of any preseason games, started out playing right around the 20 minute mark to start the season, and IMO could have pushed the 25 minute mark had there been no doctor-ordered minutes limit on his game. With that being the case, if his next return to the court finally sees him fully healthy, and he stays that way, I think we’ll see him easily in the 25-30 minute range very soon. And 4th quarter play? Without a doubt in my mind, a healthy Bogut will see LOTS of 4th quarter action in every game.

  27. I am also underwhelmed by Barnes. What bothers me the most is that the problems I see are exactly what I read about in the scouting reports last summer.

    Perhaps surprisingly, Green shot 3′s about as well as Barnes.

    It seems to me that, if he could hit the college 3 (and is a decent FT shooter), he ought to be able to hit the NBA 2. Based on this, and the fact that he ought to be able to get open (who would really bother to guard him?), I’m expecting at least some increase in his FG%.

    I hope you’re right about Jenkins. I didn’t watch the tank parade games last season (I couldn’t stand it), but I’m suspicious about success in them. and I remain skeptical about Jenkins.

    • Green was limited by a minor injury in pre season which also restricted his use in the first few weeks of the season. but of course there were plenty of off-court factors that heavily favoured Barnes, prominently the campaign last season to secure his lottery pick. he’s also gone ‘all-in’ with the ‘brand building’ for his name and career.

      Green’s superior court awareness has already shown up in his stronger work on the boards, along with the far greater defensive coverage he provides that’s been the obvious difference between him and the more hyped, higher paid fellow rookie. his college coach also considered him the most secure ball handler on the team and he was used as a point forward, and against press defenses.

      Jenkins has only established one consistent skill at this level, a jump shot. he’s had trouble with the ball against starting level guards and wings, which is probably why his minutes are spotted against reserves.

  28. @21

    White Hat | December 21, 2012 at 10:09 am | Reply

    Steve, I’m sure we all appreciate all the links and no one wants to discourage you from participating here, but in the last 6 months rgg is at least the 3rd commenter to ask you to scale back the re-posting somewhat.

    In addition, you’re probably the only one who enjoys your insults to other people on this blog. rgg made a simple request. You escalated it to a pissing contest, THEN asked if others agreed with him. That’s how it reads, anyhow.

    Play with us, but play nice, OK?

    ————————————–

    WH, this isn’t about any “re-posting” binge over the “last 6 months” for the simple reason that I don’t “re-post” very often at all. Supplying links to articles I plead guilty to but otherwise the re-posting of something on the nature of Lacob’s interview is only on the very occasional side.

    Truth-be-told, rgg got his jockey shorts all in a bunch over reading about one of his favorite people, Joe Lacob, talking about how famously things have been going with his team, which segued into all his mumbo jumbo whining. “Tough T to he” pretty much sums up my feelings on all that nonsense, which, by the way, I’m through with unless others want to keep rehashing it, like yourself.

    It’s absolutely hilarious that you and rgg keep referring to my use of sarcasm in occasional replies as “insults”. Here, of all places, where the very moderator of this blog constantly uses sarcasm in his write-ups.

    This very thread was highlighted by Felt calling both Tim Kawakami and Ric Bucher “tame house pets”, followed by later referring to John Hollinger as a “snake-oil salesman”. These are the actual names of public figures who can be seen out-and-about on a regular basis by the general public. I don’t know about you but if I’m Kawakami or Bucher and read that someone has called me a “tame house pet” I’d feel at least somewhat “insulted”, and even moreso if fans picked up on that and started shouting it at me at Warriors games, or heck, how about at a restaurant where I was dining?

    Compare that to myself and what I say to a bunch of people like yourself and rgg who post here under a cloak of anonymity that defines the 21st century blogosphere. I just “insulted” “White Hat” and “rgg”? Oh, that’s nice, and who the hell are they? “They” are just two more anonymous bloggers who for all anyone knows could be posting on this and other blogs under numerous other usernames/handles. Isn’t that right, Mike? LOL Bottom line, please stop with all this thin-skinned “insults” BS. If your feelings are hurt from reading my opinions then stop reading my posts.

    As for “playing nice”, I always play nice. But I never back down from a good “fight”, either. And I’ll reiterate, I am keeping tabs on any thumbs down sentiments from others on my posting habits. If enough say “nay” than I’ll stop posting, no problem. Sorry, you and rgg don’t have a vote in my book, which means maybe switching to one of your other handles? LOL

    • Steve, would you agree that civility in our exchanges here are preferable to the alternative ? your charming ripostes to other participants on this site are not really on the same order as anything we might say about lacob, kawakami, et. al., because we’re not engaged in a dialogue with them. we would be engaging them w. insults or inflammatory rhetoric if we e-mailed them or posted on their blogs, but we’re in this ghetto of ether/internet space, and they’re fair game like any corporate, media, political figures.

      • Moto, I definitely agree, and as far as I’m concerned I’ve always followed the rules of “civility” both here and anywhere else I’ve ever posted about sports, life, love, etc. I never swear (not counting an occasional “hell” or “damn” for effect) and never post anything that could ever be viewed as lewd or totally inappropriate.

        Doses of sarcasm at times? Guilty, but almost always in reply to someone who rubbed me the wrong way and accordingly had it coming, IMO. But to equate that with being insulted, here, “in this ghetto of ether/internet space”? Just doesn’t register, sorry. (BTW, EVERYTHING I’ve said here I would absolutely say to that person’s face if given the chance. Would Felt tell Bucher or Kawakami to their face that all they were were “tame house pets” to Joe Lacob? My guess is no. If true not sure exactly what that would say about our “fearless leader”? LOL)

        I might add I have no problem with Felt’s “style”, I just find it funny how some people here love sarcastic prose unless it’s directed at them, at which time it becomes insulting language.

        • Steve, people are talking to you and you’re not listening.

          • And neither are you. I told you, Mikie, your vote doesn’t count.

          • I’ve got news for you, White Hat. I am a subscriber to this blog and have been for about two years, and I am listening/reading. What I see is someone who adds to my reading experience and whose opinions I find valuable, just like Feltbot’s. Steve has always been generous enough to take the time to post links for our education, about basketball and other topics as well. Steve, maybe it’s time to break out another great music video or the adorable blonde vocabulary lady again. Funny how nobody complains when you post links to her vocabular lessons…

          • Andria, where in the world have you been? Way, WAY too long without even a “hi”. Shame on you! :)

            How about our Warriors?! Big game tonight. Can we at least beat the Lakers ONE TIME this season? Actually, how about three times? LOL

            OK, just for you, not an oldie, but still a pretty good song called “Titanium”, and the gal singing, Christina Grimmie, is doing a cover of the song. Great voice, I think you’ll enjoy.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OA4fdiOqNMw

            Andria, don’t be such a stranger. Happy Holidays!!

          • Yeah, Andria, where u been? Always enjoy hearing your opinions.

  29. From Warriors TV: The Quarter Report

  30. Charlotte, aside from the obvious (Lee and Curry):

    1. I think we won the deflection battle (see #29).

    2. I’m surprised we didn’t play the second unit longer second half with a 16 or so point lead. A strong defensive unit with pressure on the Charlotte backcourt could have stalled them a long time.

    3. If part of Biedrins’ problems are mental, he looks more relaxed at backup.

    4. Only garbage time for Jefferson in a game they fairly well controlled?

    5. Barnes. . . .

    6. Start Green against the Lakers in place of Barnes, maybe let him crossmatch against Kobe some of the time? Why not? They need to start strong.

    • green’s game. his +/- happened to be identical to the final difference, plus 15, and in this game, not a coincidence. the highlight video of curry’s 8 three point goals also features green in about half of them, setting screens providing more than sufficient space. most of the rookie’s minutes came in the first half. entered with 3.15 left in quarter one, team was two points ahead. left with eight min. remaining in the second for thompson, lead was up to 12. 6 min. remaining, barnes re-enters for jack, and Cha comes back to trail by 2; green returns with 4.41, leads a fast break among other things, the lead goes back to 9 at the half. this was perhaps the first game in which green out shoots and outscores barnes as well, though the preacher rarely has them share the court.

      • If I wanted to present a team like the Lakers with an imposing starting lineup, I’d start Green. I missed the screens for Curry, and all the more reason to start him, to help out offense. St. Jean showed a clip where he was telling a vet where to go. If Green missed his first five shots, he’d still appear to be the greater offensive threat because of his confidence and determination. And he wouldn’t hang around and wait for his moment. He’d give MWP second thoughts about shooting in the event he was feeling hot.

        I’ll think the best of Barnes because we got him and it’s unlikely we’ll trade him. But he’s got to earn his spot in the starting lineup and doing this might be the test he needs. It just looks like he is tagging along, and holding up the first unit.

        • Barnes has all the talent in the world – there’s no denying it.

          However, his passiveness and ability to disappear on the court right before our eyes has been the knock on his game that has me most worried.

          I read a post that compared Barnes to a young Kobe and I about threw up! LOL! Kobe from 18 years old – would grab the ball, knock others out of the way, and drive to the hoop. The 20-year old Barnes? He’s deferring to others… Fitting in…

          Barnes has not asserted himself like an alpha male. Barnes’ heart and competitive fire will be a question mark – until it isn’t.

          I’m hoping for the best. It’s all up to Barnes.

      • Green always impacts the game. When he’s on the floor his name comes up in the majority of plays. It’s uncanny. I don’t think I’ve ever seen another player do that.

        Barnes doesn’t always impact the game, though I wonder how much of that is the coach’s game plan for him (go stand in the corner). The only plays the team ran for him last night were isolations. It’s like he was the designated Monta.

  31. Entering a showdown with Western Conference powerhouse Memphis on Wednesday, the Bucks still have plenty of doubters. SI.com polled five advance scouts on whether Milwaukee could win a playoff series with this roster. Each said no.

    “I don’t see how that combination can be a consistently winning team,” the East scout said. “When you are a purely jump-shooting team, you are not going to go very far. And they don’t have a post presence they can consistently get the ball to.”

    Said the West scout: “They are going to live and die by Jennings and Ellis.”

    http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/nba/news/20121219/brandon-jennings-monta-ellis-milwaukee-bucks/#ixzz2FnXbWznJ

  32. Video: Yahoo Sports talks about the Pacific Division (Clippers and Warriors)

    http://yhoo.it/YyaxDy

  33. Barnes’ reputation not only preceded him but also may be overwhelming him. But for the life of me I can’t see what it’s based on. He was a primary scorer two years for a fairly well-balanced UNC team that fell short of the expectations of most. College stats here:

    http://statsheet.com/mcb/players/player/north-carolina/harrison-barnes/team_impact

    16.4 points per game, 5.5 rebounds, and this is a site for stat phreaks. I don’t know if it’s any good—I found it on the fly—but much of his reputation is based on the opinion of “experts.” There’s just not enough evidence there to form an opinion. How many college players had similar stats?

    The most charitable assessment, put possibly most accurate and beneficial for him, may be that he is a developing player. But I don’t see how he is going to develop as a starter, especially now that expectations are high for the team. He would have benefited, as Klay did, from the tank season, where the pressure would have been off and he would have had time to develop. I assume the team won’t go that far this year to protect his reputation.

    In short, move him to the bench so he can grow. And if we’re going to develop a player’s offense in the starting lineup, I’d rather see the efforts go to Ezeli, who has shown some promise and already contributes in other ways.

    His 3 point shot looks good, but he’s not going to develop confidence there unless he launches a few. He’ll better develop his driving abilities against weaker 2nd units. On a side note, I don’t think any shooter can develop unless he gets the shots. I’m curious what Nelson would have done with Reggie Williams in the Charlotte lineup, who sorely needs his offense.

    Better basketball minds: Seriously, why not start Green? The guy who got Lebron’s respect is going to get it from others and give the starting lineup an entirely different energy and look. And it looks like he can handle the pressure. I want him on the floor just for his look, which shows confidence and is imposing.

    • in my mind barnes will always be tainted by last season’s agit-prop, double think campaign, abetted by many fans, that losing = winning, ugly hoops = bright future. he’d deserve Ø minutes if rush were healthy, but because of what was invested in him and his ‘brand’, if rush didn’t get hurt we’d have seen much less of green.

    • I sense I will be addressing this issue shortly.

  34. I fully expect Green to be a competent scorer, maybe better than that.

    In college he shot the 3 about as well as Barnes.

    It seems to me that if Barnes, at 7th pick, was playing as well as Green is, we’d all be delighted with the pick.

    Right now, I think it’s obvious that Green is the better player.

    Espn.com has shot charts. Barnes missed all seven of his shots right in front of the rim last night. Anybody can have a bad night, but I just don’t see enough improv in his game. I see straight jumpers and straight drives. I don’t see anything clever. He does play D, so he gets credit there.

  35. Relevant to the Green discussion. Izzo talks about Green in a Mich State game. His first impression is that Green didn’t play well. Then he details all the things Green did right in the game.

    • green led his teams to two final fours. clearly, much of what goes for evaluation expertise is flawed. the league has had literally dozens of brilliant players within an inch of green’s height, yet that was a consideration that depressed his rating. they doubted he was quick enough to defend wings, but use metrics based on running in a straight line and don’t measure cognitive/processing speed factoring for nine other moving bodies, the ball and the rim.

      the top players on the team in creating positive results at the most consistent rate during their time on the court are lee, curry, jack, and green.

    • Izzo I’m sure deserves much credit for Green’s development as a complete player in the four years he had him. Here Barnes meets Green, early last season, UNC vs. Mich St:

      http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/basketball/boxscore?gid=201111110413

      From the box score, the only conclusion I can draw is that Green carried a heavy load, which had to be important in his growth. I see this as an advantage. I don’t recognize any other names on the Mich roster, but UNC had, I believe, four draft picks.

      Powerhouses like Kentucky and UNC load up their rosters with talented players, who only stay one or two years now. This must make it hard for them to learn and grow or find a clear identity as a player. Time was, college teams could only get one or two talented players, and they developed gradually, with much attention from the coaches. I was surprised to find out how much Jordan credited Dean Smith, because I always felt Smith held his players back.

      Curry, of course, was the main player at Davidson, though he had capable contributing teammates. He also had a sharp coach, McKillop, who pushed him to be a complete player. I recall after one game he criticized Curry for his rebounding, and Curry was playing point. I’m fairly certain Curry was put at point his last season because that was the position he would most likely play in the NBA.

  36. The knock on Green last summer was, apparently, that he was an insufficiently athletic tweener. In watching him I don’t recall thinking, “gee, Green is too slow to guard that guy” — ever. What I have seen in very quick lateral movement on defense. Has anybody actually blown by him? As a practical matter, does Barnes superior athleticism actually translate to superior defense?

    • if a player possesses the minimum necessary foot speed to account for the position(s) he defends, anything beyond that on defense (open court offense of course a different matter) is largely cosmetic, compared to other significant factors. those include his length and how he extends it, where he puts himself, of course, like the placement of a stone on the grid of go, how his feet and hips are aimed, and where his neck and head direct his vision.

      green has trained himself for years to be a ‘glue’ guy, creating and covering for his ‘mates, both ends of the court. not the same mind set as the big scorer. barnes’ college team had two or three other players on the court who were more essential for the team to function and win.

    • I couldn’t agree more with this analysis. Excellent discussion — and I intend to borrow from it!

      • ‘t’was well before the time of most folks here, but what Green did for his college team was very similar to the position and role Nelson had at Iowa, and both ended up defending three positions in the n.b.a.

  37. Feltbot and Steve,

    Aw shucks, guys. It’s nice to be missed. I have “no excuses” why I haven’t been posting here, although I have read everything faithfully and watched every game, as usual. I have to say that it’s been a lot less painful this year than last.

    I was very sad to see Epke Udoh go, since he was my guy last year to be a breakout player. Although I saw the necessity of including him in the trade, it bothered me more than the loss of Monta Ellis, whose goose was cooked the minute the sexual harassment news hit the fan. With Lacob’s son similarly accused, there was way too much heat for him to stay and continue to draw attention to the situation(s).

    High basketball IQ and intelligence are traits I really value in a player, and I don’t think Monta had it. Steph Curry and David Lee, yes. Our new draft picks and acquisitions, hell yes.

    I love Draymond Green and I think Festus Ezeli, besides having the coolest name of any rookie, is only going to get better and better. He hasn’t got the years of basketball under his belt that most NBA players do, having started in college. Most of these guys have been playing since they were little kids. For the relatively limited time he has been at it, I’m impressed. He is smart, he is physical, he is willing to learn, and he will develop better hands and more skills the more he plays.

    Not sure about Harrison Barnes yet. I have to have faith that the same guys who picked Green and Ezeli saw something worthwhile there. I think he is in search of an identity, even if he has a “brand”.

    Picking up Jarrett Jack and Carl Landry was a complete coup. Rock star bench players, both of them. I like that they are embracing the backup role, even though they might be starters on another team. I really like this team, even without Bogut, and I look forward to the future, Yes, this team can beat the Lakers, Steve. And I believe they will tonight.

    OT: Great music video, Steve. As always, your taste in music is impeccable.

    • < < I think he is in search of an identity, even if he has a “brand”. >>

      Perfectly put Andria, you beat me to the punch with this line.

      +1 Great analysis, as always.

    • Andria, I hope tonight’s game goes so well that your “rooting” leads to all your neighbors complaining about all the noise coming from your place. LOL

      I enjoyed reading your take on all things Warriors, past and present. My only disagreement would be on why Monta was traded. He was the one chip Lacob had to make a potential future-changing trade, and when one of the better centers in basketball, albeit injured, became available the decision to pull the trigger was pretty easy from his end.

      While his off-court issues were definitely not a plus, in pro sports teams will do everything in their power to quiet the “noise” and smooth over the rough edges whenever one of their better players finds trouble away from the playing field/court. If the Warriors at the time had had Ellis penciled into their long term plans that’s exactly what would have ultimately taken place, IMO.

      The other huge factor in trading Ellis was Monta’s contract situation, which is now rapidly affecting the Bucks and their future. GSW wasn’t going to give Ellis a new max contract (and neither will Milwaukee), so to get something for him was a really big priority.

      The other day I posted an article that talked about the timing of the trade in regards how Monta was playing at that time. On March 12th he was named Western Conference player of the week, and on March 13th he was traded. Supposedly, Houston was also aggressively going after Bogut at the time so it’s very possible that Monta’s great play that week was the final push that the Bucks needed to say “yes” to the Warriors offer.

      Even if Bogut never plays again it’s a trade I’d make even today. I’m a big fan of Bogut’s all around toughness, smarts and BB skills. The fact he’s also honest to a fault and always tells it like it is, at least in his eyes, doesn’t hurt either for me. Just a good guy and a really good player who will help this team a bunch if he can ever get himself back to full strength, and I believe he will.

      You’ve just reminded me again (with your analysis) why you’ve been so missed around here. Also, anyone who’ll say nice things about me I tend to find quite irresistible, although I admit it’s hard to tell Brytex that for some reason. :)

      P.S. Glad you enjoyed the song.

  38. Barnes has all the athletic talent in the world, but presently, has a jumper that rarely goes straight, and a drive to the hoop that his limited to exciting tomahawk jams, and occasionally a reverse lay-up shot. He only plays above the rim on his jams, all other times he is far from the rim.

    He does not have a drive in the half court in which he extends and lays the ball off the backboard by the rim. What he does is leave his feet from the rim and raise the ball above his head, and that brings it down and shoots underhand with either his right or left hand from three feet from the basket, and tries to lay-up it up over the rim. He needs a major makeover but on his jump shot and taking it to the the hoop. He should copy Monta Ellis highlights taking it to the hoop and laying the ball off the backboard. Yes, he has the potential to get a jump shot and and a decent drive to the hoop, but presently he lacks both. The coaches were able to change J.Richardson drive to the hoop from taking off on two feet, to only taking off on one. It’s time for the coaching staff to start working with Barnes. And he should not be on the court until he is ready. Right now, he is only losing confidence because he does not have a clue.

    If he doesn’t get a game, he should be traded as Thompson should be playing the three. and Jack should be starting.

  39. Pingback: The Barnes Identity: Warriors 115 Clippers 94 - Feltbot's Warriors Blog

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>