Showing posts with label FU graphs. Show all posts
Showing posts with label FU graphs. Show all posts

Sunday, March 7, 2010

FU Graph: The Role Player X-Y Motion-Dependency Graph

We're graphing again. This time, it's a brief look at the makeup of the role player, using some of the more recognizable secondary players in the Association. Peep it below...
Even though the graph has an "independent" side to the X-axis, every non-star is dependent on something. Whether it's playing against the opponents' second string lineup or the spacing their team's best player provides based on his awesome, role players need some sort of outside help--otherwise, they'd be All-Stars. That previous sentence is why Josh Smith makes this graph. He, like Dwight Howard and Amar'e Stoudemire, is most effective when in constant motion. Offense can't run "through" him yet. He's the true definition of a finisher; and he's beginning to grasp this notion (taken far less threes this year, plays 17 feet and in). Maybe next year, he'll participate in that game in February.

There's no right or wrong role player. Championship teams have had at least one player fall in each of the four quadrants. In my opinion, the most important player is the one that follows in the lower left quadrant, named the "Ginobili" quadrant. That player can come in the game and take over the game offensively because he's more talented than the other team's second-unit. He can carry his team for stretches while star players are in foul trouble or slumping from the field. They're self-reliant yet remain complimentary. This is why Atlanta's a serious threat with Jamal Crawford; and why the Suns haven't been the same without Joe Johnson--and why Johnson's a multi-time All-Star without Nash. But with that said, the contrapositive of the Ginobili quadrant consists of those players that are standstill and dependent. This fourth of the graph is named the "Kerr" quadrant. Normally, being standstill just refers to those players that dwell beyond the arc. But in the case of Zydrunas, for example, he's the premier pick-and-pop big man in the NBA; but rarely takes a three. "Standstill," in my thinking, means a player shoots it where he catches it. It doesn't necessarily mean from distance. If All-Stars were being included, then David West would be the prime choice. There's nothing detrimental about being an accessory to greatness.

This graph was made with Rasheed Wallace and Lamar Odom in mind. These two were acquired by the Celtics and Lakers respectively as valuable pieces to bring championships. Odom, after being invisible against the C's in 2008, showed up and showed out last season. His brief awakening provided LA with indefensible mismatches at the power forward position. It's no secret how much ability he possesses. The inquiry has always been if he can sustain it and not engage in Mamba watching. That's why he has an "invisible" plot and a "visible" one. He literally disappears and reappears by the game. As for Rasheed, his problems have always been psychosomatic. I've spoken my piece on how great I feel 'Sheed should be/have been; but for some reason, he enjoys being anonymous and unselfish. He's still unstoppable in the post, but he'd rather remain floating around 24 feet away from the basket. His skills haven't diminished as much as his play would suggest. He still gives Dwight Howard fits when defending him. For Boston's sake, he captures some semblance of his old form and be what KG, Shuttlesworth, and Pierce thought he would be when they visited him in their successful attempt to recruit him to Beantown. Odom and Wallace come and go as they please.

While researching information for this graph (props to everyone that gave suggestions on Twitter), I found that there are very few players that fall into the standstill and independent quadrant, titled, the "Vinnie Johnson." JR Smith and Jason Terry are players that can dominate the game with their jumpers; yet break offensive sets or have sets run through them to get them open. They're not one-on-one scorers, per se. Yet they seem to have the ball in their hands and given the proverbial green light. Their perimeter games are so reliable, and they play on teams in Denver and Dallas that get little production from the 2-guard spot. They fit perfectly in those schemes.

As with my other graphs, this was just a microcosm of all the role players in the Association. I could do a graph for every team, by conference, or even by position. But I omit things for the sake of debate. And as usual, leave likes and dislikes in the comment box.



Peace.

Saturday, January 23, 2010

FU Graph: Perimeter Player Classification

I'm combining my inner nerd again and I have a new graph for my loyal readers. The last one I did was a breakdown of the 30 teams along the spectrum of conventional/unconventional. For this one, I'll be categorizing the different types of perimeter players on offense. If I had more time, a lot more of my posts would have graphs attached to them. PowerPoint is addictive to a nerd like me. I decided to not give definitions because I expect my readers to know the difference. If you don't, then you should reading which names are where. Anyway, peep the graph below.

The first element of the graph that may be noticed is Kobe's name in the merged center of the Venn diagram. Even though Kobe's a scorer by trade, he remains somewhat efficient with his shots and shot selection. I actually gave long consideration to placing Dirk in the middle of the graph as well. As much grief as I give the Big German, he's turned the silkiness of his jumper into a weapon of mass destruction. I've never seen a player so feared when he rarely sets foot in the paint. He's what Rasheed Wallace should have been his entire career since 'Sheed decided to be strictly perimeter-based. That's enough praise for Nowitzki. Moving on.



What I discovered through my research is that there aren't many "pure" shooters in the NBA. Well, at least there aren't many that are worth mentioning. Once a player becomes labeled as solely a shooter, the other facets of his game—if there are any—are rarely developed. Ray Allen is only a shooter because his jumper is that deadly. He's a scorer at heart, and still attacks the basket. Rashard Lewis poses as a scorer, but we don't feel him (we need something realer). In order to ascend offensively, a player must be a threat off the dribble. More options equals more potency.

The third component of the graph is Tony Parker's name outside of the three circles. That's because Parker is a symbol for the point guards that score, but not really. This includes Rondo, Rose, Miller, and even Billups, Paul and Williams to a degree. Yes, they can score, but they aren't considered scorers. Only Billups as "Mr. Big Shot" has a label of shot-maker. And most of those names have a pretty high FG%, but the perimeter jumper isn't their strong suit. But with not being a part of the graph, point guards are able to float among the periphery of it. They're able to morph into whatever their team needs them to be outside of the distributor and floor leader. Nash's name should probably be among them; but I think he's the easiest to classify among the 1-guards.

As with any post, leave comments and disagreements in the appropriate box. These are my interpretations, meant only to inspire Basketball thought. There will be more graphs to follow.



Peace.