Points in the Paint

» November 3, 2009 5:48 PM | By Brandon Hoffman
  • From John Hollinger’s PER Diem (Insider):  “Perhaps we ‘misunderestimated’ Houston. The Rockets’ early close wins over Golden State and Portland gave us an idea that they’d be competitive, but after last night’s one-sided win in Utah they really need to be taken seriously. Houston is 3-1, with the only loss coming in Portland’s difficult Rose Garden, and the road win over a Jazz team that has always been the Rockets’ kryptonite seems especially fortuitous. Here’s the big shocker: They’re doing it with offense. On paper, Houston’s attack looked absolutely anemic entering the season. In reality, Rick Adelman is again squeezing the most out of it with his motion offense. Houston ranks 10th in offensive efficiency in the early going, and if the Rockets can keep that up their stout defense should do the rest of the leg work to get them a surprise playoff berth.”
  • Rajon Rondo has received the bulk of criticism for his little skirmish with Chris Paul, and rightfully so. But don’t let that baby face fool you, CP3 is no choir boy:  “The game against the Hornets also saw Al Harrington come up admittedly ‘woozy’ after he and Chris Paul tangled on the floor for a loose ball. Harrington dove and knocked Paul’s legs out from under him. It appeared Harrington then grabbed Paul’s leg to hold him down and Paul retaliated with a few quick jabs on Harrington’s head. The officials clearly didn’t see it because nothing was called. ‘He didn’t punch,’ Harrington said. ‘When I dove, his knee — my head hit his knee.’ He then added, ‘He might have slipped a couple of jabs in there, but it didn’t affect me. I fight in the summer so it’s all good.’ Paul, who is already in enough hot water with the NBA for his altercation with Rajon Rondo in Sunday’s loss to the Celtics in Boston, said he and Harrington talked about the situation and were ‘fine’. By Paul’s explanation, Harrington ‘really hit his head on the ground when he dove.’ Will the league see it that way?”
  • Euroleague player Pete Mickeal, blogging for HoopsHype, on what it’s like to play with Ricky Rubio:  “I had never traveled with a rock star until now. To me, Ricky’s nickname is Rock Star. When I got drafted to New York, I played with Latrell Sprewell and I thought that was something. Everybody wanted a piece of Spree, everybody wanted an autograph, but there’s no comparison on the attention Ricky commands. It doesn’t matter where we’re at. Anywhere in Spain, in Europe… We can be in Turkey, everywhere. That’s why I call him the Rock Star, because I actually see people crying over him. I’ve never seen it! Girls crying! People want pictures, they come to the hotel to find him… It’s unbelievable. And he’s such a good kid though. He handles all these situations so well. His parents did a great job raising him because he’s such a humble and nice kid. He’s special.”
  • Dan Wetzel of Yahoo! Sports:  “The NBA instituted an age minimum for American-born players in 2005 that essentially mandated they attend at least one year of college. Players previously could jump to the NBA right out of high school. It was self-serving and un-American and had no basis in historical fact. Great players – Kobe Bryant, LeBron James, Dwight Howard – had proven college wasn’t necessary. Players who do go to college – even for four years – are no less likely to flame out in the league. And despite the ‘education’ college players are supposed to receive, there are just as many horror stories about them blowing their money or getting into legal trouble as there are about the preps-to-pro guys. No matter how the traditionalists spin it, college just isn’t for everyone. Particularly when it comes to a gifted basketball player seeking a well-rounded development of his game. Why pretend to be a student for a few months? Why go play for a glorified recruiter? ‘Not every kid needs to go to college,’ said Duke and U.S. Olympic team coach Mike Krzyzewski. ‘Not just sports, in life. I think it’s a very arrogant thing to think that.’ People, however, do think that, and Jennings heard it and heard it and heard it. He heard it when he first decided to bail on a commitment to Arizona (or a junior college if he didn’t qualify academically). He heard it when he predicted he would benefit from international coaching. He heard it when reports came back that he wasn’t getting much playing time in Italy. He heard it when he mentioned to reporters he was understandably homesick. Now he’s dying to hear it some more. ‘Everyone said, ‘Don’t go to Europe, go to college, be a top-five pick, do the one-and-done thing,’ ’ Jennings said. ‘They didn’t see the whole picture, though. I didn’t play a great number of minutes but people didn’t see the practices, the two-a-days, the hard work. Most days I was the first one there and the last one to leave. I got to work on stuff other rookies didn’t get to. I got to do things that prepared me for the NBA.’”

3 Responses to “Points in the Paint”

  1. Erick Says:

    I’m not surprised by Wallace’s league-leading shot attempts blocked.

    Charlotte’s forced to post him up with no spacing on the court. Wallace just isn’t good enough to score in the paint against double teams, plus he’s getting worn down. Charlotte’s lucky that their defense is professional-grade, they have a horrible offense. Probably second worst in the league.

  2. xphoenix87 Says:

    That’s really more of a problem with small sample size than it is a problem with +/-. You take a 3 game sample, you’re going to get wacky numbers out of it.

  3. Basketballogy Says:

    x,

    Yes and no. I mean I do agree with you about the small sample size, but the other stats had small sample size to work from as well and they were not as wild as +/-.

    I think the bottom line is nearly ever stat gives you an idea of a player’s contributions, however no single stat really measures what a player does for his team.

    I’m a fan of +/- still, I think it does a fair job of capturing the intangibles, but it still isn’t the be all and end all… and I’m sure you’d agree.

    My point, I guess, is:

    +/- had a small sample size yes, but so did the other stats, indicating that there probably is nothing definitive when it comes to measuring contribution in basketball. There’s still plenty of room subjective debate!

Leave Your Comment