APBRmetrics

Mathketball wrote: Still, it's doubtful that the top players on the top teams are playing with playoff intensity in February against weaker competition (but to be fair, Minnesota was a decent team last year).

I still see the belief that playoffs would somehow provide a different playing level based on "intensity", but in reality the overall skills are much more important. You are also looking into exceptions as the means of your primary argument when in fact such "outliers" can very well be within the normal variance. Especially in the RS the schedule looks different for the teams and thus such results in a limited sample may very well give you a completely wrong picture of the situation. Sure, you notice that the Thunder are more likely to win against the Cavs than the 3-1 record for the Cavs suggests, but the 3-1 isn't likely to be caused by a lack of "motivation" on the Thunder part. There is a reason that worse teams have in average a worse record against better teams than they have a against worse teams. There is also a reason that players tend to produce better numbers against worse teams. And the reason here is simple the difference in playing level for the respective players and teams. If your idea would be true, such results would not be there, but players would rather have similar numbers against better and worse teams, because their supposed lack of motivation against worse teams would drag their numbers down. You looked at two more examples and found that they indeed have better numbers against worse teams. What does that tell you about the influence of "motivation" then?

Also, I have a hard time taking someone serious in terms of player evaluation, who argues that Kevin Love based on playing style is closer to Zach Randolph than to Blake Griffin. Besides the rebounding element I can't imagine someone would picture the skillset of Love and Randolph to be somewhat equal ...

And regarding Varjeao: I don't put any faith into any player, but when we argue about the defense and how that would likely look like when the Cavs are trading for Love while sending out Wiggins, we can safely assume that Varjeao will make a bigger positive difference to the Cavs defense next season than Andrew Wiggins would, even if Vareajo would just play 40 games ... there is basically no precedent of a wing player at Wiggins age coming in and making a defensive impact like a good defensive C usually makes. And Varjeao has to be considered "good" in that aspect.
I also made the point in the answer to bondom343 that James might prepare himself for a better defensive season than the last season. That should compensate for anything which would potentially be lost on the defensive end what Wiggins could offer.

I understand your way of thinking, where you believe that the future is as important as the present and therefore such talent as Wiggins should rather be kept (and I assure you that I also think that, if the Cavs can get Love without giving up Wiggins, it would be preferable), but you have to realize how good Love is and you should not look at arbitrary ways to dimish that "goodness" while artificially raise Wiggins' value based on a believed potential (in that case on the defensive end). And then you have to realize that Love will just be 26yrs old at the start of the season, which in turn means you get that extremely good player in his prime without having to invest anything into his development. He is already on his level and given his skillset, he is well-suited for a long career. He also has a skillset which perfectly fits with James and plays a position where the Cavs don't have the quality, while Wiggins would likely interfere with James in terms of skillset and position.

At this point it is a no-brainer for the Cavaliers. Sure, that may turn out to be a bad decision, because Wiggins in 3yrs becomes the MVP and Love suffers an injury ... but that is not the most likely scenario.

[quote="mystic"
I completely agree that Young is the better alternative here, but I can't quite follow the notion of "contract is expiring". Thompson and Young are both on reasonable contracts and with an increased salary cap having either of them longer under contract should be a positive here not a negative.
[/quote]

I hadn't heard anything of Thompson being in a deal, but he would likely have been better yet. I'd agree, don't know why I said it would be a positive Young is expiring, but I think it's better for them to have that than say, GSW's offer of David Lee who's got another year and a ton more money on the contract. Young's price tag is just more reasonable. Ideally I think they'd like him longer, and he may resign.

mystic wrote:wilq's idea of waiting until the deadline is interesting and has some merits, just that there is obviously also the risk involved that the Timberwolves having a bad start and then see the trade value for Love decrease

I disagree here, I don't think Cavs wouldn't want Love just because TWolves have started badly.
If weak win-loss record of his team was the problem for them they wouldn't be interested now. Also you didn't mention other side of the same coin - in case of Cavs' slow start there's way more pressure on them to make such trade than it is now.

mystic wrote:or see the trade value of discussed players increased to a point where they would not be available in such a Love trade anymore. Would be interesting to know how the risk analyses is done in such a case in order to find the best possible decision ...

So why don't we try to do it just for fun?

IMO there are only 3 possible scenarios in which trade Love-Wiggins wouldn't happen in some form near the trade deadline:

1) Love would have to have serious injury which would force him to either miss many months or wouldn't allow him to play in the playoffs. While the odds of this event are typically extremely low [poor George though...] Love's injury history is iffy in this regard. He played 6 seasons and lost huge parts of 2 due to injuries - broken bone in left hand [2009-10] and fractured right hand [twice in 2012-13]. I usually assume [wrongly?] that broken bones are freakish and unpredictable events but even I would have to assume there's non-zero chance of that happening again to Love due to his style of play. So what are the odds here? 0,5%? 1%? 5%? I don't know exactly how to measure it but the main point is this - I don't think there are high enough to be the main worry for the Timberwolves to accept trade now.

2) Wiggins would have to be a star or almost star right away [so it wouldn't make sense to trade him for more expensive star].
Because of all the things mentioned in 3) IMO there's zero chance for this scenario.

3) Wiggins would have to disappoint in such a way it would either lower his perceived upside or Cavs' offer would be no longer considered as the best one.
Obviously this point is greatly correlated to your opinion of his upside and probability of reaching it but I assume everyone would agree possibility of such disappointment is higher than 1). Maybe even much, much higher [which is why I would wait in TWolves' shoes]. IMO there are at least 3 factors which could contribute to such point of view:
a) Wiggins is very young and the list of above average rookie seasons for teenagers is pretty short [to be fair his age also could be viewed as an excuse but the question was about my opinion...] so we basically should assume he will start slowly. What's even worse most players on this list played in limited minutes and/or were big guys or point guards and of the few swingman NONE OF THEM had Wiggins' statistical profile. Speaking of which...
b) Wiggins' main source of value right now is defense which obviously is very important but very few wings are considered stars mostly because of it. What's more, rookies very rarely are good at it so that's another factor why we should assume that his start won't wow anybody. IMO if Wiggins' doesn't flash any improvement over his college performance in shot-making or play-making abilities his trade stock will drop.
c) hype. Ironically it may be Wiggins' biggest problem because he has to reach higher levels to not be considered disappointment! Let's assume that because of a) and b) in February he would be viewed as the next Deng or maybe Deng+. It would mean "he will have a nice long career as a starter"... but that's not a star and he wouldn't work as a centerpiece in trade for Love!

OK, that was long but it sums up nicely what I meant in the first post.
What do you think? How would you assess the risk for both sides here?

BTW, IMO there's a great twist in this debate because GM's incentives are slightly different than team's. I'm not sure that rumored trade accepted in August is the best case scenario for the TWolves but I do think it is fantastic for Flip Saunders. It will lower expectations in general [so longer leash despite possibly poor winning%] and give him a chance to fight for last playoff spot [so "hey, we're not tanking and we are close, I just need few more years..."].

Mathketball wrote:I tend to believe that playing with LeBron will make guys like Waiters, Bennett, Wiggins, and Thompson (doubtful he'd be traded) better or at least look better than playing without him.

May I know why do you believe in it? Especially regarding Wiggins and Bennett who are both basically rookies?
Because IMO it's easy to agree LeBron can improve stock of veteran players... but I don't think there's a track record for the same effect on youngsters. What is even the best example of that? Hickson??

mystic wrote: I still see the belief that playoffs would somehow provide a different playing level based on "intensity", but in reality the overall skills are much more important. You are also looking into exceptions as the means of your primary argument when in fact such "outliers" can very well be within the normal variance. Especially in the RS the schedule looks different for the teams and thus such results in a limited sample may very well give you a completely wrong picture of the situation. Sure, you notice that the Thunder are more likely to win against the Cavs than the 3-1 record for the Cavs suggests, but the 3-1 isn't likely to be caused by a lack of "motivation" on the Thunder part. There is a reason that worse teams have in average a worse record against better teams than they have a against worse teams. There is also a reason that players tend to produce better numbers against worse teams. And the reason here is simple the difference in playing level for the respective players and teams. If your idea would be true, such results would not be there, but players would rather have similar numbers against better and worse teams, because their supposed lack of motivation against worse teams would drag their numbers down. You looked at two more examples and found that they indeed have better numbers against worse teams. What does that tell you about the influence of "motivation" then?

It sounds like what you're arguing is playing an elite team in the regular season is every bit as hard as playing that same team in the post season if the rotation and minute distribution was the same. As I said, yes I think motivation increases in the playoffs but that's not the only factor. You also have the opponents undivided attention for more than a day or two, meaning a more evolved game plan and more familiarity in individual match ups.

Yes, all the examples I provided showed better performance against worse teams in the RS. I think that would probably be the case for just about any player. That doesn't mean that same player wouldn't perform better against the same team in a playoff setting than in the RS.

mystic wrote: Also, I have a hard time taking someone serious in terms of player evaluation, who argues that Kevin Love based on playing style is closer to Zach Randolph than to Blake Griffin. Besides the rebounding element I can't imagine someone would picture the skillset of Love and Randolph to be somewhat equal ...

First off, I was talking about Randolph of a few years ago when he was more effective stretching the floor. Second, in no way did I insinuate that Randolph is or was close to the skill level of Love. I think a compelling argument can be made they're more similar than Love and Griffin though. Nearly identical 2pt% career at 48 compared to Griffins 54. Total FG% of 47 and 45 compared to Griffins 53. In his prime ZBo's outside shot was more reliable than Griffins. Both better offensive rebounders career than Griffin. Both significantly better FT shooters than Griffin. Career Love and ZBo are closer on assists than either to Griffin. Blocks and Steals they're all about the same. In terms of athleticism Love and ZBo are more similar.

In singling out Griffin, Randolph, and Varejao I was simply trying to pick guys that compare to Love in some aspects. Love is a very unique player. Griffin is similar to Love in some ways but he's a plus athlete that plays above the rim, Love is not. Randolph is similar in that he's not a plus athlete but has managed to be an elite rebounder and, in his prime, he stretched the floor better than Griffin (still not even close to as well as Love). Varejao is similar in the fact that, in his prime, he outworked guys for what he got.

mystic wrote: And regarding Varjeao: I don't put any faith into any player, but when we argue about the defense and how that would likely look like when the Cavs are trading for Love while sending out Wiggins, we can safely assume that Varjeao will make a bigger positive difference to the Cavs defense next season than Andrew Wiggins would, even if Vareajo would just play 40 games ... there is basically no precedent of a wing player at Wiggins age coming in and making a defensive impact like a good defensive C usually makes. And Varjeao has to be considered "good" in that aspect.

I wasn't comparing Wiggins and Varejao's defensive impact... so I guess I'm not disagreeing with this?
I did notice an article on bleacher report a few days ago that mentioned Love was 74th in FG% against on shots at the rim out of 77 players who faced at least 5 per game. Varejao was 64th and Tristan Thompson was 76th. You can pretty well bet Thompson and Varejao aren't going anywhere so those numbers have to raise some eyebrows.

mystic wrote: I understand your way of thinking, where you believe that the future is as important as the present and therefore such talent as Wiggins should rather be kept

I want to point one other thing out here. I don't think I've explicitly stated it in any of my previous posts, but one of the underlying reasons for my concerns was that it was being reported that the Cavs were willing to make this trade without Love agreeing to sign an extension. So they would only be certain he'd be under control for 1 or more likely 2 years compared to Wiggins who they could control for the better part of a decade. However, the new reports today are that Love will be signing a 5 year extension.

wilq wrote:

Mathketball wrote:I tend to believe that playing with LeBron will make guys like Waiters, Bennett, Wiggins, and Thompson (doubtful he'd be traded) better or at least look better than playing without him.

May I know why do you believe in it? Especially regarding Wiggins and Bennett who are both basically rookies?
Because IMO it's easy to agree LeBron can improve stock of veteran players... but I don't think there's a track record for the same effect on youngsters. What is even the best example of that? Hickson??

I'd say Daniel Gibson is one example. He had a postseason WS/48 of .211 in Cavs NBA finals run during his rookie season. Maybe Norris Cole. LeBron hasn't really played with any high profile rookies/young guys though. So without a track record I lean towards believing he will help get the most out of their talent, which is significantly higher in Wiggins, Waiters, and Bennett than Hickson, Gibson, and Cole.

wilq wrote: I disagree here, I don't think Cavs wouldn't want Love just because TWolves have started badly.

Sorry, but that is a strawman, because nobody ever said something even remotely close to that. The issue wouldn't be the Cavs, but the pressure on the Timberwolves FO coming from Love to trade him. His trade value would simply went down, if the Timberwolves would have had a bad start. And unless there would competitors coming in making it a bidding war at that time, that would likely mean the Cavaliers could get Love for less.

What you probably don't really know is that better teams (teams wanting to compete in a specific season) are reluctant to make a big change in midseason, if they are not forced to do so due to circumstances. Especially in such a case, where the possibility exists that Love could not opt into his contract and therefore could leave at the end of the season. Teams are usually not willing to give up a lot for a potential half-year rental.

wilq wrote: BTW, IMO there's a great twist in this debate because GM's incentives are slightly different than team's. I'm not sure that rumored trade accepted in August is the best case scenario for the TWolves but I do think it is fantastic for Flip Saunders. It will lower expectations in general [so longer leash despite possibly poor winning%] and give him a chance to fight for last playoff spot [so "hey, we're not tanking and we are close, I just need few more years..."].

Sure, the motivation can be different, but for team building purposes it is always better to have the full team to work with in training camp already rather than to have to integrate players during the season. There is so little time due to the extensive schedule that teams rarely having usual practice time in which they could learn to interact together. That will always be an incentive for teams to make a trade before the season starts rather than later. Also, at this point the potential trade partners and their respective willingness to give up assets is well-known and when there is a real threat of a player leaving after the season, the team has enough incentives to look to make a deal before the season starts, because, as I pointed out, the plan to wait until the deadline has the risk involved that the player's trade value gets lowered while other teams have less incentives to make a deal for that said player. The thing is: The Cavaliers might have just moved on to another target with the same or similar package. We talked about Hibbert here before, but another target could have been David West, a player helping the Cavaliers to win now, while they could have very likely keep Wiggins. Then there is LaMarcus Aldridge ... maybe Marc Gasol ... well, there are a few players, who might be available for the right price and all of the sudden the potential trade partner for the Love will be the Bulls or Warriors with a lesser package ... That is a real risk to consider.

Sure, as I said before, your idea has some merits, but as you pointed out (indirectly), the real on-court value of Wiggins in the NBA is not accessable with real confidence right now, and some of his value is appointed to "hype", but the factor "unknown" is also a limiting factor for his value. If you believe, that Wiggins is "overhyped" (like I do, btw.), his trade value is rather high right now, but if he pans out to be the real gamechanger, he would be undervalued at this time.

Mathketball wrote: It sounds like what you're arguing is playing an elite team in the regular season is every bit as hard as playing that same team in the post season if the rotation and minute distribution was the same.

No, what I'm saying is that a bigger sample gives you a better impression of the playing level of the respective player than a smaller sample. Also, the perceived "increased motivation" in the playoffs is not necessarily a factor to improve playing level, but can be a hinderness in order to achieve the maximum level. Especially for action which ask for skills, being overly motivated will not achieve the desired result, but will rather lower the level. Also, due to the higher amount of playing level a drop in average performance level is expected ...

The overall issue with your argumentation is that you perceive the lack of playoff games to be important, but the matter of fact is that "more playoff experience" does not show any kind of positive impact on the overall performance level of the player. As I poined out before, a part of your perceived impression that it might matter is sample size and the lack of controlling for opponents strength when evaluating the performance level of a player in the regular season. As you noticed the boxscore numbers of a player shows an increase against worse teams in the regular season, while in the playoffs such teams are hardly the potential opponents. Thus, adjusting the numbers in regard to the opponents strength improves the predictive power of such numbers. The issue I noticed here: the relationship is not linear, but the adjustments usually are.

Mathketball wrote:However, the new reports today are that Love will be signing a 5 year extension.

That report is nonsense, because the CBA does not allow for a 5yr extension in Love's case. The only players being able to sign such 5yr extensions are designated players coming off a rookie scale contract. What was reported is that Love basically assures his staying by saying that he will not opt-in and then sign a new 5yr max contract with the Cavaliers in the summer of 2015. But there is no possibility of signing any kind of contract going in that direction right now or within the current season. That is similar to Carlos Boozer agreeing to sign a new contract with the Cavaliers back in 2004 when the Cavaliers are not using their team option ... The Cavs did not use their option and Boozer signed with the Jazz instead ... The only way Love is not ending up on the Cavaliers with his current 2yr contract while the 2nd yr is a player option would be an extend-and-trade. That extend-and-trade could only give him a 3yr contract overall, while the salary would be based upon his current salary level for the 2nd yr with a 2017 being 105% of the 2016 salary. That would be not a useful thing to do for Love, because next summer he would be eligible for the 30% max, which would be higher than the 2016 salary he would get (that is 30% of the 42.14% of the projected BRI, not 30% of the actual salary cap). Also, Love would get the 7.5% raise ... Love would leave a HUGE amount of money on the table (the salary would effect his later salary for the next contract as well, assuming you would receive another max contract), if he signs the extension now. And, if he is traded without extending, he can't extend the contract for the next 6 month ... So, overall, the most likely scenario is Love coming to Cleveland on his current contract without any kind of extension.

Mathketball wrote:I'd say Daniel Gibson is one example. He had a postseason WS/48 of .211 in Cavs NBA finals run during his rookie season. Maybe Norris Cole.

Wait a second, they maybe played over their heads but their stock around the league was still low. Gibson was overpaid by the Cavs and was out of the league soon while Cole couldn't even be traded last month! For me those are not good examples to prove a theory that LeBron improves *trade* value of youngsters. On-court value sure but your argument was based on increased trade value for those players involved in a deal.

Mathketball wrote:LeBron hasn't really played with any high profile rookies/young guys though.

Which is a reason why IMO we don't know what would happen.

mystic wrote:The issue wouldn't be the Cavs, but the pressure on the Timberwolves FO coming from Love to trade him. His trade value would simply went down, if the Timberwolves would have had a bad start. And unless there would competitors coming in making it a bidding war at that time, that would likely mean the Cavaliers could get Love for less.

What pressure are you talking about? Love said he wants out and he's already widely known to be on the trading block. What else can he do to lower his trade value? Stop playing? He won't hurt himself and that's the only option. IMO a bad start from the Timberwolves would change nothing in those negotations but a bad start from Cavs would greatly increase their need for such trade.
What's more, right now there's only one bidder for Love which is bad for the TWolves and waiting wouldn't make it much worse but could make it way better.

mystic wrote:What you probably don't really know is that better teams (teams wanting to compete in a specific season) are reluctant to make a big change in midseason, if they are not forced to do so due to circumstances. Especially in such a case, where the possibility exists that Love could not opt into his contract and therefore could leave at the end of the season. Teams are usually not willing to give up a lot for a potential half-year rental.

I'm aware of that but again this a bigger problem for the Cavs than for the Wolves which could be used as a leverage for the latter.

mystic wrote:The thing is: The Cavaliers might have just moved on to another target with the same or similar package. We talked about Hibbert here before, but another target could have been David West, a player helping the Cavaliers to win now, while they could have very likely keep Wiggins.

So it doesn't matter for the TWolves because their dream target wouldn't be traded in any other scenario!

mystic wrote:Sure, as I said before, your idea has some merits, but as you pointed out (indirectly), the real on-court value of Wiggins in the NBA is not accessable with real confidence right now, and some of his value is appointed to "hype", but the factor "unknown" is also a limiting factor for his value. If you believe, that Wiggins is "overhyped" (like I do, btw.), his trade value is rather high right now, but if he pans out to be the real gamechanger, he would be undervalued at this time.

That's fair but what are the odds of that?
I think we agree on the Cavs' point of view but we disagree on the risk/reward ratio for the Minnesota's side.
Could you try to create your own risk analysis as I've done in my previous post?

I won't be as verbose as others.

Love.