G. Dieng- Minn

gyso wrote:

mrkleen09 wrote:

-As for your use of Per 36 - IMO (and the opinion of many others) that stat is only relevant when used to compare players who are in the same ball park in terms of playing time.  You cannot compare a 19 mpg player and a 32 mpg player and expect the stat to hold up.  Particularly when you have real world stats to compare it to.  In college and the pros, Dieng vs Sullinger is as lopsided as they come.

But to each his own.

Yup, Per-36 a very useful stat when comparing players.  It acts as an equalizer when comparing players whose total minutes per game are comparatively close.  When it is used to compare low minute players to high minute players, you have to believe that the low minute player would average the same per-minute stats if given a higher minute allotment.  Why would you believe that?  Their coach doesn't believe it.

If a low minute player could play more minutes and maintain his production level (per minute), his coach would play him higher minutes.  Maybe it is an older guy who would either break down with higher minutes (the O'Neal's as Celtics) or whose game would suffer with a higher allotment of minutes (KG).  Maybe it is a young guy whose playing time is mostly against bench players and whose game would suffer going against starter-level players.

Per-36 (or Per-1, for that matter) stats are a great tool, as long as you understand their limitations.

gyso

Good points.

Could that also lead up to "over analysis leads to paralysis?"

As you point out, these are tools that may have some use, but do have limitations.  I've always admired the coaching style that uses the overload of stats we now have to a certain point, then prefers to trust his own eyes.  Too many variables when talking about Per and stats like it.  A player who only gets garbage time minutes against end-of-bench guys looks good statistically, up until he goes against high-minute starters who clean the floor with him.

Dieng is a center.  Sully is not.  Kelly is.  Dieng still appears to have high upside, but is slight by center standards and behind the bigger-by-about 60 lbs Pekovic.  But if we go strictly on statistical analysis, there could be a few issues here.  One problem is, which set of stats do you believe?  Something gyso points out above about the Per example.  Put the Per aside for a moment.  Let's look at PIE (Player Impact Estimate).  Over 15% is considered excellent. Dieng's PIE is over 17%, Pekovic is just below 12%.  Based on that comparison, why isn't Dieng starting?  For that matter try this comparison of PIE...

Dieng          17.7%
Pekovic       11.9%
Zeller          14%
Sully           12%
Kelly           12%

So wait a minute, isn't Brad a big stats guy?  Well he sure screwed up big here, didn't he?  Zeller should be starting, and since this is a hypothetical discussion anyway, let's trade both Kelly and Sully, along with some picks if needed, and get Dieng.  The dude is on fire, his PIE is 17.7%.  Heck, Kevin Love's is only 12.7%, and many fans were willing to have their wives sleep with someone in the T-Wolves front office to get him.  LeBron is at 15.9%, Dieng's is higher than The King!

It's what gyso was saying.  Sometimes useful tools, but you can't use them in a vacuum.

Without the stat overload, Dieng appears to have potential, and has a 295 lb roadblock in front of him.  One with a multi-year, multi-million dollar contract. Who can say if maybe Dieng could become available?  Or maybe the T-Wolves like having a strong and deep center situation.

Maybe the question should also be asked; is our solution at center best viewed as someone else's backup?  Maybe we also need to consider draft position and getting and developing our own.

Just my rambling $.02.

NYCelt,

If Olynyk is listed in Basketball Reference at 238 pounds and you consider him a center, how is it that Dieng is listed at 245 pounds but can be considered "slight" for a center?

Sam

Sam,

Actually, I saw Dieng listed at 220-something.  Could have been wrong.

There go those misleading statistics again!

I also consider Kelly a center because, well, that's where he plays. Just lining up the chess pieces.

I hope the trip is going well.  I know I've gotten updates via-my-wife-via-yours-via-Facebook.  You just can't escape any more.

Regards

The notion that in order to get a center we have to part with either Kelly or Sully is possible.  The fact that both of them are power forwards means little in the big scheme of things because they bring a different set of skills to the table that are needed on this team.

It is a fact that every team in the NBA needs more than one PF.  If you have 2 of them that are starters that does not mean that both of them need to start.  

The Celtics could have drafted Dieng but opted to trade up for Kelly.  I liked Dieng and wanted the Celtics to draft him.  Danny had the hots for Kelly.

When I look at Sully and Kelly I have come to the conclusion that Kelly may very well have more upside.  But Sully has only played 55 games for us so perhaps that conclusion is a bit premature as is the notion that Dieng has a high ceiling.

I do agree that having a center like the developing Dieng would bring a better structure to the team.  I am neutral on whether or not we should pursue his services.  But there are other center options to consider if not this year then next year.  We could very well retain both Kelly and Sully and still add a viable center.

There are 11 Centers that will be free agents next year.  I am not advocating one over the other but simply stating that we will be in position to possibly add one of them. If the Celtics are in the playoff picture around mid-season we could very well see a move to add one of these guys.  We still have a ton of first round picks to consider in a trade.  There are a few on this list that would command a front line player like Sullinger Plus a pick or two.  

Al Jefferson (Player option)
Tyson Chandler
Greg Monroe
Roy Hibbert (player option)
DeAndre Jordan
Marc Gasol
Omer Asik
Samuel Dalembert
Kendrick Perkins
Robin Lopez
Tim Duncan

Dboss

Mrkleen,

Here's the bottom line.  Basically, stats have two components: (1) mathematical and (2) logical/judgmental/qualitative (such as the eight considerations I listed earlier).  The per minute stat removes one more mathematical intervening variable than the per game stat does.  In terms of the logical/judgmental/qualitative aspect, they're both subject to the same possible biases.

So I prefer to use the per minute stat that, in comparing players, contains one less biasing intervening mathematical variable than the per game stat.  And then, if (unlike virtually everyone else), I choose to consider the possible effects of some or all of the myriad possible intervening variables (including minutes per game), I can do so.

Theoretically, an example of my approach:

1. Player A scores more points per minute than Player B.  (This puts them on the same footing mathematically.)

2. What is the likelihood that Player A will achieve less, the same, or a greater points per minute rate if he gets more minutes?  (This introduces the logical/judgmental/qualitative component.)

On a more practical basis, I don't go through all the logical/judgmental/qualitative stuff every time I quote a per minute stat because the same analysis would also apply to both the per minute stat and the one alternative—the per game stat.  This short cut is a matter of convenience resorted to by virtually every person who references a basketball stat.  The per game stat does no better than the per minute stat in predicting what will happen if a "lower minutes" player gets more minutes.

It seems to me you're implicitly assuming that a player who plays fewer minutes than another player will very likely be less productive if subjected to a greater work load per game.  In reality, there's every possibility that playing longer stretches, having greater opportunity to get into the flow of the game, and becoming more immersed in meshing with teammates could actually increase the output of the "lower minutes player."  The fact is, one doesn't really know what will occur, whether a per game or per minute stat is employed.

As for Hollinger, I was using the "per minutes" stat in the sixties....WAYYYYYYYY before Hollinger made a splash with it.  I can't help the fact that Hollinger decided to copy my work, dress it up a little, and luck into one of the few legitimate stats he pushes.  (LOL)  Same with the +/- stat that I stole from hockey and used for basketball in the sixties, only to discarded it as invalid for individuals, and then to pick it up again when data on 5-player combinations became available.

I hope this clarifies my perspective for you.  If not, just let me know.

Sam

Dboss,

It seems that the forgotten name in all of these thoughts is Brandon Bass.  The Celtics, in fact, have three power forwards—each of whom has his own attributes.  If Kelly were to be traded (my choice over Sully because I believe Sully is carving out an impact niche for himself while Kelly is adept at a number of things—excluding defense—but master of none), I'm guessing Bass could very nicely share power forward duties with Sully while Dieng and Zeller share the center position.  I have no idea how the four would develop collectively over time, but I'd be interested in having them give it a try.

Sam

dboss wrote:The notion that in order to get a center we have to part with either Kelly or Sully is possible.  The fact that both of them are power forwards means little in the big scheme of things because they bring a different set of skills to the table that are needed on this team.

It is a fact that every team in the NBA needs more than one PF.  If you have 2 of them that are starters that does not mean that both of them need to start.  

The Celtics could have drafted Dieng but opted to trade up for Kelly.  I liked Dieng and wanted the Celtics to draft him.  Danny had the hots for Kelly.

When I look at Sully and Kelly I have come to the conclusion that Kelly may very well have more upside.  But Sully has only played 55 games for us so perhaps that conclusion is a bit premature as is the notion that Dieng has a high ceiling.

I do agree that having a center like the developing Dieng would bring a better structure to the team.  I am neutral on whether or not we should pursue his services.  But there are other center options to consider if not this year then next year.  We could very well retain both Kelly and Sully and still add a viable center.

There are 11 Centers that will be free agents next year.  I am not advocating one over the other but simply stating that we will be in position to possibly add one of them. If the Celtics are in the playoff picture around mid-season we could very well see a move to add one of these guys.  We still have a ton of first round picks to consider in a trade.  There are a few on this list that would command a front line player like Sullinger Plus a pick or two.  

Al Jefferson (Player option)
Tyson Chandler
Greg Monroe
Roy Hibbert (player option)
DeAndre Jordan
Marc Gasol
Omer Asik
Samuel Dalembert
Kendrick Perkins
Robin Lopez
Tim Duncan

Dboss

it's a nice list of possible FA centers.

but we can eliminate Duncan, Chandler and Dalembert as too old for this team (or not wanting to play their final years fro a team that will not have a chance at the finals).

Perkins is a back up only now and would only make sense for a hometown discount and to make Rondo happy.

Jefferson and Monroe are fine Wide body PF's, but neither one is much help on defense.

so that leaves us with Hibbert, Jordan, Gasol, Asik and Robin Lopez.
Hibbert I believe has a nice player option for next year and with the big TV money hitting the year after, he would be wise to take the option next year.


so
Jordan- Clippers will do whatever to keep him, especially if they are close to the finals this year. New owners have deep pockets.
Gasol- Memphis will probably lose him , but he will get a max deal. IF Rondo get the max, their won't be enough space for more than $12-14M.
Asik- he should fit dollar wise as a FA (412-14M) and would make Sam very happy.
Lopez he also should be in a range that the Celtics could get him dollar wise.

of course the cap plays a big part in any FA's as well. It nice to see a lit of top centers, but can the Celtics get in position cap wise to make a play for ANY of them?

right now, the Celtics have 12 players under contract for next year with a payroll of 46.9M, we have to add the two first round picks (Maybe $3M). then renounce rights to Rondo, Bass and Thornton( I believe) to be at that $50M payroll. only then do we have the space for another teams top level FA ( Such as Gasol, Asik., etc).

so havingUFA's out there isn't the same as being able to sign them.

kdp,

I'm glad someone realizes that Wyc's ONLY objective is to "make Sam very happy.

My only concern about Lopez is that I believe the Celtics need to build with a defensively tough center (among many other things).  I would be happy with either Asik (although I have no idea whether he's even playing this season) or Jordan (but I agree the Clips will keep him).

In the meantime, making a trade for Dieng wouldn't alter the Caltics' ability to grab an Asik in free agency.

Sam

Robin Lopez has developed into a solid center who is a good rebounder and defender and scrounges up low double figures for points based on offensive rebounds and occasional opportunities. He shoots over 50% from the field and near 80% from the line. Unlike his brother, he's played 82 games the last two seasons. Some notable statistics from last season:

• 55.1 FG percentage, 7th in the league
• 1.7 blocks per game, 8th
• 13.6 offensive rebounding percentage, 4th
• 326 total offensive rebounds, 3rd

I've watched him a decent amount last season and this season, and I'd take him over Hibbert (too inconsistent and enigmatic). Although their strengths are different, I'd put him on a par with Asik.

On the chances of his signing with Boston, I'd put it above those of snowball in hell, but he seems completely happy in Portland, and the feeling is mutual.

NYCelt,
 
Not wanting to appear argumentative without cause,  I contacted all the scouting resources I could find.  Here’s what they list for Dieng's weight.  Most figures are for 2013, but I believe the 2014-15 stats shown by Basketball Reference are for 2014:
 
245 Basketball Reference
238 Fox
233 ESPN
233 Rotoworld
230 Draft Express
230 SB Nation

I accessed the Timberwolves' website, and I can't find find height and weight stats for their players on it.  Hard to believe, and I'm still looking.  In the meantime, I have a call into the Timberwolves’ office, and they will be giving me their official, most up-to-date figure (which I realize they can manipulate as they wish) tomorrow.  I called today as their day was ending and got the "P.R. not available" runaround, but it won’t happen again.
 
The following excerpt from a Draft Express article (link below) suggests that Dieng's weight is evolving very rapidly:
 
Dieng's intrigue as an NBA prospect starts with his prototypical size and length for the center position. Standing 6'11 with a 7'4+ wingspan, he's added nearly 50 pounds to his frame since arriving in the USA, and although he could still stand to pack on more muscle to both his upper and lower body, he certainly passes the look test at this point more easily than he did as recently as a year ago.
 
http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Gorgui-Dieng-6219/


I’m a little more encouraged about him after seeing these stats, especially because I view Basketball Reference as being the most credible and very likely the most current source of available stats.  In addition, if there’s some idiosyncrasy in Basketball Reference stats, it’s likely similar for both Olynyk and Dieng, whom I was comparing.
 
I’ll be interested in what the T’Wolves office has to say.  I told them I was involved with a chat board involving the Celtics, so they very well could tell me he's 8' 4," weighs 443 with no body fat, jumps over buildings, and has never allowed a point to be scored against him.


Yes, Facebook has assumed an important social presence in Sally's life.  (Unlike mine.)  Since we have tended to make friends when we travel, it offers her a way to stay in touch with many far-flung acquaintances at a time.  The trip is great, although we're not staying long in any single place.  No time or desire on my part to desert Sally and search out bars in which to watch the games.  The good news is that I'm becoming increasingly convinced that one can surmise, with reasonable accuracy, what's going on from the running commentary, box score, and most of all our Game-on Thread.  The people who have been posting on that thread have great knowledge, wonderful insights, and convivial (how that word keeps coming up!) posting styles. 


Best to Nancy and Michael,


Sam

Sam,

Let us know if the Wolves call!

Me, I like Dieng and wanted us to draft him.  Although it's fun to discuss, there's certainly nothing that would lead me to think he might be coming our way.

Every time I see a topic on centers and who might be available, I become further convinced our best bet at a long-term solution is to draft one.

Jahlil Okafor in 2015.  I'm getting the buttons and posters printed up and sending them to Danny.  Trade anything not nailed down or named Rondo or Smart to do it.

One suggestion…find a bar to take Sally to and watch the game! Of course, there should be nice atmosphere and dinner in the deal too.

Regards

kdp59 wrote:

dboss wrote:The notion that in order to get a center we have to part with either Kelly or Sully is possible.  The fact that both of them are power forwards means little in the big scheme of things because they bring a different set of skills to the table that are needed on this team.

It is a fact that every team in the NBA needs more than one PF.  If you have 2 of them that are starters that does not mean that both of them need to start.  

The Celtics could have drafted Dieng but opted to trade up for Kelly.  I liked Dieng and wanted the Celtics to draft him.  Danny had the hots for Kelly.

When I look at Sully and Kelly I have come to the conclusion that Kelly may very well have more upside.  But Sully has only played 55 games for us so perhaps that conclusion is a bit premature as is the notion that Dieng has a high ceiling.

I do agree that having a center like the developing Dieng would bring a better structure to the team.  I am neutral on whether or not we should pursue his services.  But there are other center options to consider if not this year then next year.  We could very well retain both Kelly and Sully and still add a viable center.

There are 11 Centers that will be free agents next year.  I am not advocating one over the other but simply stating that we will be in position to possibly add one of them. If the Celtics are in the playoff picture around mid-season we could very well see a move to add one of these guys.  We still have a ton of first round picks to consider in a trade.  There are a few on this list that would command a front line player like Sullinger Plus a pick or two.  

Al Jefferson (Player option)
Tyson Chandler
Greg Monroe
Roy Hibbert (player option)
DeAndre Jordan
Marc Gasol
Omer Asik
Samuel Dalembert
Kendrick Perkins
Robin Lopez
Tim Duncan

Dboss

it's a nice list of possible FA centers.

but we can eliminate Duncan, Chandler and Dalembert as too old for this team (or not wanting to play their final years fro a team that will not have a chance at the finals).

Perkins is a back up only now and would only make sense for a hometown discount and to make Rondo happy.

Jefferson and Monroe are fine Wide body PF's, but neither one is much help on defense.

so that leaves us with Hibbert, Jordan, Gasol, Asik and Robin Lopez.
Hibbert I believe has a nice player option for next year and with the big TV money hitting the year after, he would be wise to take the option next year.


so
Jordan- Clippers will do whatever to keep him, especially if they are close to the finals this year. New owners have deep pockets.
Gasol- Memphis will probably lose him , but he will get a max deal. IF Rondo get the max, their won't be enough space for more than $12-14M.
Asik- he should fit dollar wise as a FA (412-14M) and would make Sam very happy.
Lopez he also should be in a range that the Celtics could get him dollar wise.

of course the cap plays a big part in any FA's as well. It nice to see  a lit of top centers, but can the Celtics get in position cap wise to make a play for ANY of them?

right now, the Celtics have 12 players under contract for next year with a payroll of 46.9M, we have to add the two first round picks (Maybe $3M). then renounce rights to Rondo, Bass and Thornton( I believe) to be at that $50M payroll. only then do we have the space for another teams top level FA ( Such as Gasol, Asik., etc).

so havingUFA's out there isn't the same as being able to sign them.

As I said I was not an advocate for anyone in particular.  I made the list because they are free agents and they have not been signed after this year.  Cap issues notwithstanding there are trades that can be made.  Players coming and players going.

I agree that any of the older centers do not provide any long term window of opportunity but they could provide a bridge.  I would not be surprised to see a deal made this year.  There is NO guarantee that these guys will resign, retire or move on so there are opportunities for the Celtics to make a move.

By the way Kendrick Perkins would be a viable option.  I'm watching OKC right now and he is still a player that will make any team better.

As far as Monroe is concerned, he is 24 year old. He is a skilled athlete and I believe he can be coached up to become a better defender. I would not be so quick to discount him. As far as Jefferson is concerned he is not rim protector but he is a beast on offense in the post, can rebound and still leads his team in block shots. I would not be so quick to discount him either.

dboss

Just saw Perk block a shot, he is still a very competent post and help defender, defensively he still makes everyone better and makes everyones job alot easier. Because Perk's game is not based on athleticism, he could still be an effective load in the paint for years similar to Shaq in his later years.

I don't disagree about Perkins here.

and yes a trade this year is the best way to get the salary cpa space to sign( re-sign) a new Center.

Thornton for Perkins would work salary wise, but I am not sure Okc has any interest in moving hi this year.

of course there is also no signs that Minny has any interest in moving Dieng either.

the origins of this thread was simply my looking around at possible young centers who may be a bit under the radar and who could be good fits for the Celtics.

I do doubt that Ainge will be able to manage the cap space to sign a top level UFA next season ( only way would be for Rondo to sign/traded elsewhere or his rights renounced).

there are some potential starting NBA centers in the future in next years draft, but will we be in position to get any of them. They will likely go top 10 picks of higher.

this team has enough depth and is playing well enough that they will exceed the wins totals most of us expected. So a top 10 pick may not be an option ( of course all those picks Danny has could allow a move up). Either way a rook center will take 1-2 years at best to be up to NBA starting grade.

so when we look at adding a possible starting grade center, we are back to trades.

or maybe, just maybe Kelly and Zeller can be a two headed center that's good enough on a winning team.

watching Thunder vs Rockets, very entertaining game, Thunder held Rockets to 9 points in 3rd quarter as Howard was scoreless, Perk doing his thing banging Howard around.....