Sessions Update:Ramon signs T-Wolves OS (page 310 update)

europa · Post #1141 » by **europa** » Thu Jul 30, 2009 10:18 pm

europa wrote:The main reason for the Knicks trying to work out a S&T for Sessions, of course, is Walsh may believe Hammond's going to match the type of offer sheet he's thinking of making. If he was completely confident he could get Sessions, he'd sign him to an offer sheet and be done with it. The fact this has dragged on for so long is a pretty good sign that among the issues going on is Walsh's belief Hammond's going to match his offer.

MajorDad · Post #1142 » by **MajorDad** » Thu Jul 30, 2009 10:32 pm

that list of pers is making randolph look like a better than average defender. and we know he can score. so, for all you guys that use stats to defend a player, would you rather have randolph over lee?

nope- didn't think so. when it comes to randolph, there are no stats to make you like him.

skones · Post #1143 » by **skones** » Thu Jul 30, 2009 10:43 pm

MajorDad wrote:that list of pers is making randolph look like a better than average defender. and we know he can score. so, for all you guys that use stats to defend a player, would you rather have randolph over lee?

nope- didn't think so. when it comes to randolph, there are no stats to make you like him.

That's the point. If good defensive players can statistically make you a better defender than you actually are, then bad defensive players can make you out to be a statistically worse defender than you actually are.

BDUB_30 · Post #1144 » by **BDUB_30** » Thu Jul 30, 2009 10:47 pm

skones wrote:
MajorDad wrote:that list of pers is making randolph look like a better than average defender. and we know he can score. so, for all you guys that use stats to defend a player, would you rather have randolph over lee?

nope- didn't think so. when it comes to randolph, there are no stats to make you like him.

That's the point. If good defensive players can statistically make you a better defender than you actually are, then bad defensive players can make you out to be a statistically worse defender than you actually are.

game - set - match !

Fight the Tank · Post #1145 » by **Fight the Tank** » Thu Jul 30, 2009 11:10 pm

skones wrote:
LUKE23 wrote:
trwi7 wrote:For reference, these are CV's opponent PER's at PF.

08-09: 18.3
07-08: 20.4
06-07: 19.8
05-06: 20.0

vs.

08-09: 21.8 (very limited minutes, but he was bad)
07-08: 18.0
06-07: 13.7
05-06: 19.2

It's clear Lee isn't bad as CV, but if people think CV is the worst PF defender in basketball, then Lee is unquestionably bottom 10.

Again, it boggles my mind why you insist on using that 21.8 number for Lee. You're reaching when you use it, because he posted an opponent PER nearly two points better playing OUT OF POSITION all year long.

You just have to quit trying. Once Luke gets going its like Rainman wanting to go to KMart to get his underwear.

Ayt · Post #1146 » by **Ayt** » Thu Jul 30, 2009 11:24 pm

I'm not a fan of opponent PER stats.

Who is responsible in a pick and roll situation if the PG doesn't fight through the screen properly, the defending PF has to stay with the help longer, and the opponent PF is left open for a jumper? What if the SG sees this and provides help only to have the PF quickly swing it to the offensive SG for an open three? How is a player like Bogut responsible when Sessions or Redd let their man get by them too easily, Bogut helps, and then Bogut's man is open for a dunk because CV or RJ didn't provide help for Bogut? What if RJ actually does help on the center and then the penetrator kicks to the wide open SF in the corner instead? Who is responsible on teams that do a lot of switching?

Defense is such a team thing that I simply can't put any weight into opponent PER stats. There are way too many possessions that end up in a score where the blame for the guy scoring shouldn't go to the guy that was specifically assigned to guard him one on one in that possession.

skones · Post #1147 » by **skones** » Thu Jul 30, 2009 11:26 pm

Ayt wrote:I'm not a fan of opponent PER stats.

Defense is such a team thing that I simply can't put any weight into opponent PER stats. There are way too many possessions that end up in a score where the blame for the guy scoring shouldn't go to the guy that was specifically assigned to guard him one on one in that possession.

I'm not either as they're an extremely flawed statistic. Unfortunately, it's really the closest (arguably) thing there is to provide some sort of analysis on defensive play with numbers.

Ayt · Post #1148 » by **Ayt** » Thu Jul 30, 2009 11:29 pm

They are just too flawed. I can't really put any weight into the them. Judging the defensive ability of players still comes down to actually watching them play. I'd say the best stats we have are on/off stats, but even those you have to take with a grain of salt.

GrandAdmiralDan · Post #1149 » by **GrandAdmiralDan** » Fri Jul 31, 2009 2:18 am

LUKE23 wrote:Knicks: Lee is worth $4.5M, Sessions $5.8M
Bucks: Sessions is worth $2.9M, Lee is worth $9M

is that correct? That twists my brain in a pretzel.

That is correct. And that's why it can't be a straight up deal like that.
There are a couple ways to make a deal work that is centered around those two. PP25 thankfully dug up one of my prior explanations already.

If you want to do it between the Bucks and the Knicks, it becomes easier to do the bigger you make the total dollar amounts on each side. Both teams could throw in one of their bad contracts. Both teams could throw in their expiring veteran PGs.

europa · Post #1150 » by **europa** » Fri Jul 31, 2009 4:26 am

David Aldridge now reporting the Knicks are prepared to make Sessions an offer for "a significant part" of their ML.

http://www.nba.com/2009/news/features/d ... idge.dish/

mcfromage · Post #1151 » by **mcfromage** » Fri Jul 31, 2009 4:31 am

I'll be disappointed if this doesn't end up as a sign and trade with something coming back from New York.

europa · Post #1152 » by **europa** » Fri Jul 31, 2009 4:32 am

mcfromage wrote:I'll be disappointed if this doesn't end up as a sign and trade with something coming back from New York.

Aldridge hints at that possibility in the story.

Looks like D'Antoni won out here. It was really looking like Walsh was going to back off but D'Antoni wants Sessions bad.

europa · Post #1153 » by **europa** » Fri Jul 31, 2009 4:49 am

Marc Stein chimes in and basically says the Bucks will let Sessions walk and use their money on Warrick.

This is going to get ugly.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/columns/s ... ter-090730

worthlessBucks · Post #1154 » by **worthlessBucks** » Fri Jul 31, 2009 4:52 am

europa wrote:Marc Stein chimes in and basically says the Bucks will let Sessions walk and use their money on Warrick.

This is going to get ugly.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/columns/s ... ter-090730

You going to get out from behind Lanita Dotson's skirt now?

Post #1155 » by **ReasonablySober** » Fri Jul 31, 2009 4:54 am

If you're trying to win games now and in the future, not matching Sessions, regardless of the cost, is a horrible move.

I don't care about winning games this season or the next, however. I'm fine with letting Sessions walk. Signing Warrick is stupid, but it's not as if he's winning the Bucks anything in the near future so whatever.

Where I have a serious problem is that it would mean that Hammond had no intention of bringing back any of our free agents but got absolutely nothing for them when he could have.

WEFFPIM · Post #1156 » by **WEFFPIM** » Fri Jul 31, 2009 4:55 am

The big free agent signing of the offseason will be Hakim Warrick.

God I can't wait

Post #1157 » by **humanrefutation** » Fri Jul 31, 2009 4:55 am

From Twitter...maybe the title should be changed to reflect the Warrick move:

STEIN_LINE_HQ NYK are on the verge of signing Sessions to an offer sheet. And MIL, we're told, is more likely to spend on Hakim Warrick and let Ramon go

STEIN_LINE_HQ Outspending CLE to land Warrick but letting Sessions go to the NYK w/Jennings there seems to be the most palatable fit for the Bucks' budget

mcfromage · Post #1158 » by **mcfromage** » Fri Jul 31, 2009 4:55 am

Considering Stein's credibility (as shown on the Hoopshype journalist ranks) this is the most legit piece of news on Sessions I think we've seen in a long time.

Just to remind/confirm: If a S&T is going to happen it would happen at the same time as Ramon signing an offer sheet. I.e. if he does sign tomorrow and we're not hearing about a S&T then we know that a S&T is off the table. Right?

europa · Post #1159 » by **europa** » Fri Jul 31, 2009 4:59 am

mcfromage wrote:Considering Stein's credibility (as shown on the Hoopshype journalist ranks) this is the most legit piece of news on Sessions I think we've seen in a long time.

Aldridge ranks high on the list too and he reported this first. I'd say it's about 99% certain we'll see an offer now. Hopefully, Hammond pulls an Orlando and surprises the experts by matching the offer sheet if the Knicks make one.

Post #1160 » by **humanrefutation** » Fri Jul 31, 2009 4:59 am

I'm not down on Warrick. I think he could be decent. But, signing him INSTEAD of signing Sessions is idiotic, especially if the offer is less than the MLE.