Ivan's Kevin Love Fantasy

[Sam Ray Not]

Really, and the Wolves illustrate why. Their bench sucks. Those three picks could be used by the Celtics to build a bench. It takes 8-9 guys to be a legitimate contender. Three guys won't do it unless one of them is LeBron James.

Well, as I said, the Wolves have been unlucky by Pythag. They've also drafted absurdly poorly (Jonny Flynn, Wesley Johnson and Derrick Williams over Curry, Paul George and Kawhi, ugh!), and are not a place free agents want to play. (Heck, keeping Kirilenko alone probably makes them as good as Portland this year). The Celtics have a much savvier FO and a much more appealing brand.
 
Even without high picks, I'd trust Ainge, Brad Stevens, and Co. to build a 50+-win team around Kevin Love. Go after an athletic, monster defensive big like Sanders (who seems eminently available); a lights-out wing shooter like Korver/Thompson/Morrow; a productive backup PG who isn't getting enough minutes like Dragic or Lin; a hard-nosed wing defender like Tony Allen or Draymond Green. Etc. Undervalued complementary pieces can be found all over the place. What's much harder to come by are Top 6 franchise players in their mid-20s.
 
But hey, if you really don't want him, I'm perfectly happy seeing him running with Curry-Iguodala-Green-Bogut et al. in Oakland. As noted above, he's a CA kid, so it's pretty likely he'll end up out there eventually.

 

[bowiac]

It's not that I think Love is bad, but the guy has missed a ton of games in his career, so we've got a decent sample of games without him. The Timberwolves have a .307 W% since drafting Kevin Love. In games where Love plays? That rises all the way up to .327 when he plays.
 
Maybe it's not his fault, but the guy has a commitment to losing. He's on a HOF statistical path, and I can't find any other player with a significant career near him in career winning percentage other than the guys alongside him on the Timberwolves.

 

[Sam Ray Not]

Would a Love-Rondo duo have the stature to attract players like James Posey, P.J. Brown and Sam Cassell, without whom there probably would not have been a championship in 2008?

That is a good question. As great a player as Love is, I get the impression that he's perceived around the league as a bit of a diva and a douche. (Ditto Rondo ... though if I were you guys I wouldn't consider him a building block based on his play alone. As many great things as he does and as fun as he is to watch, I just think a PG who can't shoot is too much of an Achilles heel in today's NBA).
 
The "stature" issue could be where a guy like Curry really trumps Love. Inner-circle guys like LeBron and Durant all seem to adore Curry.

 

[MakMan44]

 
Pekovic doesn't really bring the skillset you need next to Love (if you want decent defense out of that position). He's not an oaf, but he's far from agile, and he's pretty vulnerable against the pick and roll.  He's also not a great interior defender, either. The guy can score, and he can rebound, but you already get that with Love. That said, you could build a winning team -- and the Wolves probably should be one right now -- with those two.
 
Rubio's a pretty great defender but he's still kind of a terrible shooter. I suppose you could say that about a younger Rondo, who current Rondo looks like a faint impression of.
 
The real problem with Minnesota is that their bench is fucking terrible. Like worst in a long time terrible. A lot of those guys don't even belong in the NBDL, much less the NBA.
 
caveat: my impression of Minnesota is from having to watch a handful of their games during family holidays.

You're pretty much spot on. Rubio doesn't really have to be a great scorer because he normally has Martin, Love and Pek to pass the ball to, who are above average scorers. His problem is when he drives to the basket with the intent to get a pass off but gets blocked, he sometimes forces one and turns the ball over. He literally has no mid range jumper either. It's fucking awful. I don't want to rant, because I know most of you guys don't give a crap about the Wolves but yeah, this is a pretty much spot on comment. 

 

[nighthob]

No to Sullinger plus three first round picks? Really?

And when he leaves in free agency you've already blown your load and are marking time waiting for your chance to reload.

 

[The X Man Cometh]

And when he leaves in free agency you've already blown your load and are marking time waiting for your chance to reload.

 
I agree with this. You get one shot. Got to make the one shot count.

 

[Sam Ray Not]

My bad; I was assuming the proposed Love deal implied an extension.

If we're talking about a year's rental of Love, with only a chance of an extension (extra $$$ for staying with current team v. the siren song of California) obviously you say no to that.

 

[Cellar-Door]

You're pretty much spot on. Rubio doesn't really have to be a great scorer because he normally has Martin, Love and Pek to pass the ball to, who are above average scorers. His problem is when he drives to the basket with the intent to get a pass off but gets blocked, he sometimes forces one and turns the ball over. He literally has no mid range jumper either. It's fucking awful. I don't want to rant, because I know most of you guys don't give a crap about the Wolves but yeah, this is a pretty much spot on comment. 

He's arguably one of the worst scorers from the field in the history of the league.

 

[MakMan44]

He's arguably one of the worst scorers from the field in the history of the league.

Who, Rubio? 

 

[Cellar-Door]

Who, Rubio? 

yep.
Might have changed, but until recently he had the worst FG% of any qualified player since the 1960s

 

[wutang112878]

Would a Love-Rondo duo have the stature to attract players like James Posey, P.J. Brown and Sam Cassell, without whom there probably would not have been a championship in 2008?

 
I refuse to acknowledge that Cassell helped us whatsoever, he drove me bonkers.
 
Seriously though, in terms of attracting talent every situation is different.  Posey found us attractive, but then after he actually won the title here he left because of the money.  Or take David West who chose Indiana over us when we were much closer to a title than they were.  I am not suggesting filling out the roster is simple, there is work to be done, but its significantly easier than getting your stars.

 

[MakMan44]

yep.
Might have changed, but until recently he had the worst FG% of any qualified player since the 1960s

Yeah, it's a huge glaring hole in his game. Corey Brewer has a better FG% than him, which is....interesting. 

 

[ivanvamp]

Really, and the Wolves illustrate why. Their bench sucks. Those three picks could be used by the Celtics to build a bench. It takes 8-9 guys to be a legitimate contender. Three guys won't do it unless one of them is LeBron James.

 
It takes STARS to win a championship.  Nowitzki.  Kobe.  KG/Pierce/Allen.  LeBron/Wade/Bosh.  Duncan/Parker.  You aren't at all likely to win a championship with a team of good players.  
 
That's why, when you have a chance to acquire a legit top-5 player in the NBA, who is just 25 years of age, especially when you have an over-abundance of resources to use (which is precisely why the Celtics got those resources in the first place), you do it.  Guys like Love just don't come available very often.
 
And he may very well not be available even now, I realize.

 

[wutang112878]

The Timberwolves has underperformed their pythag literally every year of Kevin Love's career. Point differential is super important in basketball just like baseball, but there's other stuff going on as well.

The other consideration is that sometimes players are a function of their environment. PreCeltics the knock on KG was that he couldn't get out of the first round. Obviously that was fundamentally different when he got here but until you can change that environment variable you just don't know for sure.

 

[Cellar-Door]

 
It takes STARS to win a championship.  Nowitzki.  Kobe.  KG/Pierce/Allen.  LeBron/Wade/Bosh.  Duncan/Parker.  You aren't at all likely to win a championship with a team of good players.  
 
That's why, when you have a chance to acquire a legit top-5 player in the NBA, who is just 25 years of age, especially when you have an over-abundance of resources to use (which is precisely why the Celtics got those resources in the first place), you do it.  Guys like Love just don't come available very often.
 
And he may very well not be available even now, I realize.

Being 25 is only useful if you can lock him up long term. Two years of Kevin Love isn't worth what MIN would want for him.

 

[ivanvamp]

Who knows? Olynyk if he gets into some serious weight lifting. Embiid (if the ping pong balls are very kind). Greg Monroe. Larry Sanders (out for the season after last night's injury). Some Croatian or Chinese guy you've never heard of. One way or the other, they have to find one.

 
And none of those scenarios requires you to use up the resources I've suggested in a Love deal.  I mean, they already have Olynyk.  They have so many extra picks that they could use some of them to trade for a decent guy like Sanders.  The mythical Croatian/Chinese guy….really?  Ok.  
 
None of that precludes them from getting Love.

 

[ivanvamp]

My bad; I was assuming the proposed Love deal implied an extension.

If we're talking about a year's rental of Love, with only a chance of an extension (extra $$$ for staying with current team v. the siren song of California) obviously you say no to that.

 
It does.  I assumed the Celtics agree to extend Love.  I am not looking to move those pieces for a rental.  At all.

 

[ivanvamp]

Being 25 is only useful if you can lock him up long term. Two years of Kevin Love isn't worth what MIN would want for him.

 
Agreed.  I'm assuming the Celtics lock him up.  The idea is to draft a stud in this year's lottery, trade for Love, and have Love, Rondo, and this year's lottery pick be the three stars for the next 6-8 years.  That's the championship window.

 

[Cellar-Door]

 
Agreed.  I'm assuming the Celtics lock him up.  The idea is to draft a stud in this year's lottery, trade for Love, and have Love, Rondo, and this year's lottery pick be the three stars for the next 6-8 years.  That's the championship window.

Well, yeah, assuming something that is unlikely to happen (Love extension), then add in something that is pretty questionable to happen (no doubt stud in the draft) is fun, but it isn't very realistic. Planning only for best case scenarios is a bad way to run a team.

 

[bowiac]

The other consideration is that sometimes players are a function of their environment. PreCeltics the knock on KG was that he couldn't get out of the first round. Obviously that was fundamentally different when he got here but until you can change that environment variable you just don't know for sure.

KG made the Western Conference finals with the Timberwolves, and made the playoffs seven other times. Kevin Love has never made the playoffs at all. There is a massive world of difference between those two levels of struggle.
 
Many players haven't been able to win a title by themselves. That's not really notable. I can't find a single case of a player like Love who couldn't win more than 32% of his games, or make the playoffs however.

 

[Blacken]

You mean that a league that's getting better and better all the time exacerbates the effects of being on a David Kahn team? Wow.

 

[PedroKsBambino]

The league has expanded, but only by so much.
 
Tiny Archibald is best case I can come up with as a comp;  missed playoffs first three years, lost in first round his fourth year, then missed playoffs next three years.  He was spectacular several of those years, and effective in a reduced role for 81 Celts in winning a title.  So that's one Love could more or less cite credibly.
 
Anyone else come to mind for anyone?

 

[Devizier]

Elton Brand.

 

[PedroKsBambino]

Elton Brand.

 
Yup--good one.  Made playoffs for first time in seventh year.   Though, also never a guy people were talking about as first team all-league, either.  Though, could make the case for him in the next tier at some points,

 

[Cellar-Door]

In some ways I think Kevin Love is the absolute worst kind of player to have as the by far best player on your team. He's a PF who likes to play on the perimeter, he doesn't create shots for his teammates (though actually this year he has been much better), and he doesn't play much defense. Also worrying is that his offensive rebounding rate has dropped every year.
I think he is a great player, but the way he plays makes him less impactful on his team than a great player who drives the lane, or destroys teams in the paint because he doesn't change the defense enough. they just let him get his 25 and keep the rest of the defense strong, knowing they'll get at least half that back in easy baskets against him on the other end. Where a guy who can drive to the hoop, dominate the paint or distribute along with his scoring makes more impact by changing the way a defense plays and creating easier shots for teammates.

 

[Cesar Crespo]

I'm on a phone, but how about TMac or Steve Francis?

 

[Morgan's Magic Snowplow]

TMac made the playoffs a bunch of times. His Orlando years are actually a good example of how a truly dominant player should be able to drag even a pretty bad supporting cast to a first round playoff exit. Love has not only never made the playoffs, his team has never been within 10 games of making the playoffs.

 

[nighthob]

It does.  I assumed the Celtics agree to extend Love.  I am not looking to move those pieces for a rental.  At all.

Minnesota would agree to extend Love tomorrow. That's not the problem. The problem is that he isn't signing one. He's going UFA.

 

[wutang112878]

KG made the Western Conference finals with the Timberwolves, and made the playoffs seven other times. Kevin Love has never made the playoffs at all. There is a massive world of difference between those two levels of struggle.
 
Many players haven't been able to win a title by themselves. That's not really notable. I can't find a single case of a player like Love who couldn't win more than 32% of his games, or make the playoffs however.

 
There are a few differences too.  Love isnt the player KG is, especially when KG had all those 1 and outs.  KG had better talent around him, not great, but much better than what Love is working with.  And for KGs tenure the franchise wasnt dysfunctional, during Loves entire tenure it has been.
 
I dont put Love in the true superstar category of a guy that can carry a team on his shoulders.  I think he is a second tier star, and there have been some second tier stars who have struggled early in their career and sometimes went on to better things.
 
Elton Brand - won 35.6% of his games his first 5 years in the league, 39% in his first 8, and then won 46% on some awful Philly teams.
 
Antonio McDyess - won 34% of his games his first 2 years in Denver, goes to the Suns for one year and wins 56, goes back to Denver and wins 39% the next 4 years for a total Denver winning % of 37%  It would have been interesting to see what would have happened had he stayed in Phoenix
 
Ron Harper - wins 52% of his games in Cleveland, goes to the Clippers and wins 42% while playing with Danny Manning who is a decent sidekick, and then goes bonkers with the Bulls, has an injury year then wins 67 and 56 with the Lakers
 
These are the class of players I would lump Love into.  Guys who might in a perfect situation be able to be your 2nd best player on a title team, but certainly can be your 3rd best.  When we look at this class of players we will find more examples of guys who have sucked mightily and then when their situation changed their winning % did as well.  Chances are Love is going to have a career like these guys where he never gets into a winning situation and we will just wonder what if and if he really, really sucked.
 
I think we need to put into perspective the talent he is playing with, just look at who averaged 10+ points alongside him:
08/09 - Al no defense Jefferson averaged 231., Randy Foye 16.3 and Ryan Gomes 13.3 (that Ryan Gomes), Craig out of the league Smith 10.1
09/10 - Al Jefferson 17.1, Johnny out of the league Flynn 13.5, Corey Brewer 13, Ryan Gomes 10.9
10/11 - Michael Beasley 19.2, Luke Ridinour 11.8, have to type that again, Luke Ridinour, Antony career average of 7.3 PPG Randolph with 11.7
11/12 - Nikola Pekovic 13.9, Luke Ridinour 12.1, Michael Beasley 11.5, Jose started 58 career games Berea 11.3, Ricky Rubio 10.6
12/13 - Nikola Pekovic 16.3, Andrea Kirilenko 12.4, Derrick Williams 12, Luke Ridinour 11.5, Jose Berea 11.3, Ricky Rubio 10.7
 
Which brings us to this year and now they add Kevin Martin and he has 2 sidekicks who could maybe be your 3rd best player on a title team, and Love is maybe, maybe your 2nd best player on a title team and they are right around 500.  When I look at it, and see that he is playing with clowns like Beasley, a guy who puts up hollow offensive stats with no defense in Jefferson, guys who are out of the league at an early age, and guys that have no business averaging 10+ points on a competitive team (Ridinour, Gomes, Crewer, Foye, etc) I'm really not that surprised that his winning % is awful.  If I wanted him to be a superstar who would carry my team, I am right there with you I would be very worried, but I just dont think thats the type of player he is.

 

[bowiac]

Those are pretty solid comps overall wutang - I don't really disagree with you about any of them.
 
What I'll say is people are talking about Love as a HOF-pace player, and those guys are not. That's all I was getting at, that we should maybe reframe things with him as a 2nd tier star. I obviously don't think he's a bad player, but I think there's a lot of truth to what PedroKsBambino proposed, that Kevin Love is really excellent at the 7 things conventional and even advanced stats are good at measuring, but maybe not so good at the 7 things they're not measuring, so he's sort of the perfect player to be overrated by even the most advanced of metrics.
 
I think we're largely in agreement.

 

[wutang112878]

In some ways I think Kevin Love is the absolute worst kind of player to have as the by far best player on your team. He's a PF who likes to play on the perimeter, he doesn't create shots for his teammates (though actually this year he has been much better), and he doesn't play much defense. Also worrying is that his offensive rebounding rate has dropped every year.

 
I agree with your assessment of Love in that he cant be a star, but I have to nitpick on his offensive rebounding, I dont think its a complete loss of the skill instead I think it can be explained to a degree.  Look at Love's per 36 numbers compared to his ORB%
 
Season     ORB%    FGA    3PA     % of FGA are 3s
2008-09     15.1   /   12.1   /   0.3   /   2.5%
2009-10     14.5   /   13.6   /   2.2   /   16.2%
2010-11      13.7   /   14.1   /   2.9   /   20.6%
2011-12      11.6   /   17.8   /   4.7   /   26.4%
2012-13      11.5  /   17.4  /   5.4  /   31.0%
2013-14       9.4   /   18.2   /   6.1   /   33.5%
 
 
He is taking more shots, and most importantly he is taking more and more 3s and the absolute least likely scenario for him to get an offensive rebound is on of his 3PAs  I dont think its a good thing that he is now at Antoine Walker's level of bombing 3s, but I think this is the major reason for his drop in ORB%

 

[wutang112878]

Those are pretty solid comps overall wutang - I don't really disagree with you about any of them.
 
What I'll say is people are talking about Love as a HOF-pace player, and those guys are not. That's all I was getting at, that we should maybe reframe things with him as a 2nd tier star. I obviously don't think he's a bad player, but I think there's a lot of truth to what PedroKsBambino proposed, that Kevin Love is really excellent at the 7 things conventional and even advanced stats are good at measuring, but maybe not so good at the 7 things they're not measuring, so he's sort of the perfect player to be overrated by even the most advanced of metrics.
 
I think we're largely in agreement.

 
Exactly, we completely agree.  Once we start with 'he isnt an alpha dog' the whole discussion and comparables completely change.  Anyone thinking he is a HOF player is putting the guy on a pedestal he doesnt deserve.  Because Love:
 
 
 

Love

Season	PER	TS%	eFG%	ORB%	DRB%	TRB%	AST%	TOV%	USG%	ORtg	DRtg
2008-09	18.3	54%	46%	15.1	27.3	21	6.8	12.4	21	112	109
2009-10	20.7	55%	48%	14.5	28.6	21.5	12.9	13.2	22.4	113	109
2010-11	24.3	59%	51%	13.7	34.2	23.6	11.8	11.1	22.9	123	108
2011-12	25.4	57%	50%	11.6	26.4	19	10	9.2	28.8	117	104
2012-13	17.9	46%	39%	11.5	35.9	23.3	11.8	9.8	28.9	99	102
2013-14	27.6	59%	52%	9.4	30.5	19.6	19.5	9.5	28.4	121	102

 
 
 
Is basically All Jefferson with better rebounding, more FTs (hence higher TS%), similar ability to get assists, Love actually turns the ball over more and both have putrid defensive ratings:
 
 
 

Al no defense Jefferson

Season	PER	TS%	eFG%	ORB%	DRB%	TRB%	AST%	TOV%	USG%	ORtg	DRtg
2004-05	16.6	55%	53%	13.5	21	17.3	3.9	13.3	21.2	108	104
2005-06	16.2	53%	50%	11.4	22.6	17.2	5	12.4	21.6	104	103
2006-07	19.8	55%	51%	12	27.4	19.5	7.2	11.8	22.4	109	103
2007-08	22.7	54%	50%	11.9	24.7	18.1	7.5	9.4	27.5	109	108
2008-09	23.1	53%	50%	10.6	24.9	17.5	8.8	7.8	28.9	109	108
2009-10	19	52%	50%	8	24.2	16	10	9.9	24.3	106	108
2010-11	20.1	53%	50%	9.6	23.2	16.3	9.2	6.8	24.2	111	108
2011-12	22.8	52%	49%	7.3	25.3	16.2	12.1	5.2	25.7	112	103
2012-13	20.9	52%	50%	7	25.9	16.3	12	7.3	25.3	109	104
2013-14	22	52%	49%	6.8	28.1	17.4	13	6.8	28.5	103	99

 
 
 
Or take Lamarcus Aldridge, shooting is about the same, Loves the better rebounder and passer:
 
 
 

LaMarcus Aldridge

Season	PER	TS%	eFG%	ORB%	DRB%	TRB%	AST%	TOV%	USG%	ORtg	DRtg
2006-07	17.1	53%	50%	12.6	15.3	13.9	3.2	7.5	19.3	113	109
2007-08	18.5	52%	48%	9.8	15.8	12.8	8.8	8.9	25.3	108	107
2008-09	19.1	53%	49%	9.5	15.6	12.5	9.3	8	23.7	115	108
2009-10	18.2	54%	50%	8.1	18.6	13.3	9.9	7.4	22.9	113	107
2010-11	21.5	55%	50%	10.1	17.2	13.5	10.1	8.7	25.7	114	107
2011-12 ?	22.7	56%	51%	8.6	17.5	12.9	13.2	9.5	27	113	106
2012-13 ?	20.4	53%	49%	7.2	20.9	14	13	8.9	26.5	108	107
2013-14	22.4	51%	47%	6.9	26.5	16.7	13.7	7.1	29.3	109	105

 
 
 
 
I dont think anyone would suggest that those guys are really franchise changers that lead you to a title, but they put up hollow stats just like Love can.  If we let the free market speak, Aldridge took a ~$12M deal from Portland and Al got $65M over 5 from Minny and then had to go to Charlotte to get $41M for 3 years  Generally your true alpha dogs can get a max somewhere, and a lot of non alpha dogs can as well, so its rather telling.

 

[Brickowski]

Well the Love discussions are interesting but likely moot for the reasons nighthob states.

 

[PedroKsBambino]

I get comparing Love and Jefferson in terms of value (at least a bit don't see the equivalency you do), but worth noting that they are not at all the same type of player...in fact, their games are exceptionally different at both ends of the court.    So, for any particular team, they are not likely to fit the same way or have the same value.  These stats just don't exist in a vacuum. 

 

[Sam Ray Not]

Or take Lamarcus Aldridge, shooting is about the same, Loves the better rebounder and passer
 

59% and 51% ts is "about the same"? I guess then we can consider Kevin Durant and Rudy Gay's shooting "about the same"?
 
I don't want to belabor this issue; and I understand the caveats about his mediocre defense, but I don't see how it's fair to hang the Wolves' poor W-L record around Love's neck when his team is 9.5 points better per 100 possessions than their opponents when he plays. That's a better PD than any team in the league. Is he supposed to be better cheerleader during the 12 minutes a game he sits on the bench and watches his teammates suck?
 
One game plus-minus alert, but I give you last night's game v. Denver: minus-3 for the 11 minutes that Love sat, plus-30  for the 37 minutes he played.
 
As long as we're making poor comparisons to ex-Celtics like Jefferson, I'll throw another ridiculous one out there: Bird. Both 6'-9" forwards who liked to play on the perimeter and shoot threes, both excellent passers and rebounders (Love better at the latter, Larry vastly better at the former), neither particularly known as good defenders. Can I assume non of us think Bird was "the exact worst kind of player to have as the best player on your team"?
 
Or if the Bird comp ruffles too many feathers, replace him with Dirk Nowitzki and poke holes in the analogy.

 

[bowiac]

It's all the same issues as above. Dallas drafted Dirk and went from a .244 winning percentage to a .380 immediately. The year after they were .488, and by Dirk's third year, the Mavericks perennially had amongst the best records in the NBA, making the playoffs every year, winning 65-75% of their games. Minnesota had a.268 W%, then drafted Love, and took them all the way to .293, .183, and .207 in the next three years. As a reminder, by that point, the Mavericks were winning more than 60% of their games. It's gotten a bit better since, (.394, .378, .472), but still not good by any stretch of the imagination. Bird is obviously in a different category entirely, being on a team that won at a .354 clip without him, to immediately winning 74.4% of their games with him, and winning the title his second year in the league.
 
Tiny Archibald is the closest anyone has come to finding a superstar with that kind of start to his career.
 
I know it sounds a bit like judging pitchers by W-L record, but given basketball is significantly more opaque, I don't think that's so crazy to consider this stuff for a basketball player. We don't have ERA to fall back on with Kevin Love. Even the best metrics aren't as good at adjusting for context as ERA is. I don't think it's the only thing we should look at, but it seems to me superstars tend to at least be able to drag their teams to .500 records or the playoffs. Maybe Love isn't that caliber of guy - maybe he's a 2nd tier star.

 

[ivanvamp]

There are a lot of little things that a player can do in basketball that simply do not show up in any stat sheet.  Four quick examples:
 
(1) Help defense.  A guy beats his man and takes it to the hoop.  You step in and shut the lane down, and the guy pulls it back out and they have to reset the offense. You've saved a likely basket (or at a minimum, a very high percentage shot), but you don't get "credit" for anything on the stat sheet.
 
(2) Waning moments of the game, you're up by one.  You're running a four-corners type stall, and you get the ball in layup position with 5 seconds left.  Everyone and their brother takes the layup there, which looks good on the stat sheet (1-1 fg, 2 extra points, etc.), but is the WRONG play to make.  But you wisely pull it out, run out the clock and your team wins.  You get no credit whatsoever - in fact, your stats are *hurt* by not taking the layup - but it is exactly the RIGHT play to make.  
 
(3) Your teammate makes a bad pass and it's heading out of bounds.  You dive after it and save it to a teammate.  You don't get anything on the stat sheet.  But you save your teammate a turnover (and thus, help *his* stats).
 
(4) You're on the low block.  The wing passes to the top and you go set a back screen for the wing.  He dives to the hoop, catches a back-door pass for a layup.  The point guard gets and assist, the wing gets two points, and you get….nothing.  Except that the entire play works because of what you did.
 
Basketball is full of things like that.  Winning players make winning plays, even if they don't show up on the stat sheet.  Conversely, you can fill a stat sheet and yet make a lot of losing plays.  Like in scenario #2 - instead of pulling the ball out and running out the clock for a win, you take the layup, get two points, but give the other team enough time to make a game-tying three-pointer.  In overtime, you get another six points, but your team loses by two.  A guaranteed win became a loss, even though you added eight points to your stat total.  Losing basketball, despite better stats.
 
I think +/- is a helpful tool here.  Maybe not in any individual game, because the sample is too small.  But relative to the other members of your team (and that's important), if you consistently have a high +/-, it means you're a pretty good player, most likely.  The great ones should, over time, have the highest +/- numbers, because it means that not only are they helping their team statistically, they're doing other things to help their teammates play better.  And they're making positive, winning contributions.
 
All that said, I cannot for the life of me understand why people are down on Kevin Love.  He's not a perfect player.  Nobody is.  But the guy is incredibly good.  You can't be top 3 in PER in the league and not be really, really good.

 

[wutang112878]

I get comparing Love and Jefferson in terms of value (at least a bit don't see the equivalency you do), but worth noting that they are not at all the same type of player...in fact, their games are exceptionally different at both ends of the court.    So, for any particular team, they are not likely to fit the same way or have the same value.  These stats just don't exist in a vacuum. 

 
The analogous part is that they are all PFs, granted how they get it done offensively is very different and in that respect Love is very much his own unique style with his propensity to hit 3s.  The point is that however they put up their numbers, they are all similar and indicative of just being a piece of the puzzle not the major piece.  I would say both Jefferson and Love seem to both play the revolving door defensive style.
 
 

59% and 51% ts is "about the same"? I guess then we can consider Kevin Durant and Rudy Gay's shooting "about the same"?

 
It depends on how you want to look at the data, what stat you want to use to use to measure shooting efficiency and the timeframe.  Love is having a career year, but if you look at the career averages for TS% 55% and 53% are about the same.  When you take out FTs and look at eFG% for their careers they are about the same but this year Aldridge is having a career worst year while Love is having a career best.  So it gets to team philosophy, do you want to shoot a lot of 3s and generate a lot of misses which puts additional pressure on your defense or do you want a PF with a similar style to KG who takes long jumpers but is effective at hitting them thus not creating as many missed shots.
 
 

Love & Aldridge

Love
Season	PER	TS%	eFG%	FTr	3PAr
2008-09	18.3	0.538	0.461	0.488	0.028
2009-10	20.7	0.549	0.478	0.427	0.164
2010-11	24.3	0.593	0.513	0.486	0.206
2011-12	25.4	0.568	0.497	0.434	0.266
2012-13	17.9	0.458	0.386	0.477	0.309
2013-14	27.6	0.588	0.519	0.454	0.336
Career Average	22.37	0.55	0.48	0.46	0.22
Aldridge
Season	PER	TS%	eFG%	FTr	3PAr
2006-07	17.1	0.533	0.503	0.24	0.004
2007-08	18.5	0.523	0.484	0.257	0.006
2008-09	19.1	0.529	0.486	0.269	0.023
2009-10	18.2	0.535	0.497	0.26	0.014
2010-11	21.5	0.549	0.501	0.314	0.016
2011-12	22.7	0.56	0.513	0.291	0.012
2012-13	20.4	0.53	0.485	0.264	0.011
2013-14	22.4	0.513	0.467	0.251	0.009
Career Average	19.99	0.53	0.49	0.27	0.01

 
 
 

I don't want to belabor this issue; and I understand the caveats about his mediocre defense, but I don't see how it's fair to hang the Wolves' poor W-L record around Love's neck when his team is 9.5 points better per 100 possessions than their opponents when he plays. That's a better PD than any team in the league. Is he supposed to be better cheerleader during the 12 minutes a game he sits on the bench and watches his teammates suck?
 
One game plus-minus alert, but I give you last night's game v. Denver: minus-3 for the 11 minutes that Love sat, plus-30  for the 37 minutes he played.
 
As long as we're making poor comparisons to ex-Celtics like Jefferson, I'll throw another ridiculous one out there: Bird. Both 6'-9" forwards who liked to play on the perimeter and shoot threes, both excellent passers and rebounders (Love better at the latter, Larry vastly better at the former), neither particularly known as good defenders. Can I assume non of us think Bird was "the exact worst kind of player to have as the best player on your team"?
 
Or if the Bird comp ruffles too many feathers, replace him with Dirk Nowitzki and poke holes in the analogy.

.
The 9.5 points better needs to be looked at in perspective with the pace of the game.  Minny is 2nd in the league in pace, so a +9.5 for them is less meaningful because of the scoring volume.  Love and his fellow starters average 93.7 FGAs per 48, the league average is 83 and the highest in the league is Philly at 88.2  Most teams that play at that pace simply dont win once it becomes playoff time so the numbers are somewhat fools gold.
 
On the Denver game, Minny also won by 27.  Jose Barea was a +15 in 18 min so if he played 30 he would have matched Loves 30+, Dante Cunningham was a +18 in 16 minutes....  Its really all a matter of perspective
 
Why is it a poor comparison to Al Jefferson?  Because you dont like the fact that their numbers are very comparable? 
 
Larrys career defensive rating was 101, Loves is 106.  Larrys first 4 years in the league it was 98 or 99.  He didnt play great defense but he played defense.  And if you want to talk about poor comparisons, dont put Love and Larry in the same passing class, thats utterly ridiculous.  Larry is one of the best passers of all time.  I guess Rondo is an excellent passer like Magic as well.
 
More specifically as to why they are different in 78/79 the Celts won 29 games the leaders in minutes played in this order were Cedric Maxwell, Chris Ford, Dave Cowens, Tiny Archibald, Jeff Judkins, JoJo White.  Birds rookie year was 79/80 the Celts won 61 games and the leaders in minutes played were Bird, Tiny Archibald, Cedric Maxwell, Dave Cowens, Chris Ford and ML Carr  They went from giving up 113 PPG to 106, and from scoring 108 to 113.5  While there were some other factors at play there, most of that was because of Larry and not just because of his numbers but because he made those around him better.  You cant document anything like that for Love, not even a fraction of that impact

 

[ivanvamp]

Love is one of the best players in the NBA right now.  
 
Bird is one of the top 5 players in the history of the sport.
 
It's not fair to Love to be compared to Bird, whatever similarities they might have.  You can be a tremendous basketball player and yet fall well short of Larry Bird territory.  No shame at all in that.

 

[wutang112878]

Do you believe in individual hollow statistics?

 

[ivanvamp]

Not totally sure I understand the question, but it's possible, yes.  We've all probably played with players who aren't very good basketball players but who have, for example, a lot of points.  
 
I don't think Love fits that category though, if that's what you're getting at.  But of course I could be wrong.

 

[Grin&MartyBarret]

 
The analogous part is that they are all PFs, granted how they get it done offensively is very different and in that respect Love is very much his own unique style with his propensity to hit 3s.  The point is that however they put up their numbers, they are all similar and indicative of just being a piece of the puzzle not the major piece.  I would say both Jefferson and Love seem to both play the revolving door defensive style.
 
It depends on how you want to look at the data, what stat you want to use to use to measure shooting efficiency and the timeframe.  Love is having a career year, but if you look at the career averages for TS% 55% and 53% are about the same.  When you take out FTs and look at eFG% for their careers they are about the same but this year Aldridge is having a career worst year while Love is having a career best.  So it gets to team philosophy, do you want to shoot a lot of 3s and generate a lot of misses which puts additional pressure on your defense or do you want a PF with a similar style to KG who takes long jumpers but is effective at hitting them thus not creating as many missed shots.
 
 

Love & Aldridge

Love
Season	PER	TS%	eFG%	FTr	3PAr
2008-09	18.3	0.538	0.461	0.488	0.028
2009-10	20.7	0.549	0.478	0.427	0.164
2010-11	24.3	0.593	0.513	0.486	0.206
2011-12	25.4	0.568	0.497	0.434	0.266
2012-13	17.9	0.458	0.386	0.477	0.309
2013-14	27.6	0.588	0.519	0.454	0.336
Career Average	22.37	0.55	0.48	0.46	0.22
Aldridge
Season	PER	TS%	eFG%	FTr	3PAr
2006-07	17.1	0.533	0.503	0.24	0.004
2007-08	18.5	0.523	0.484	0.257	0.006
2008-09	19.1	0.529	0.486	0.269	0.023
2009-10	18.2	0.535	0.497	0.26	0.014
2010-11	21.5	0.549	0.501	0.314	0.016
2011-12	22.7	0.56	0.513	0.291	0.012
2012-13	20.4	0.53	0.485	0.264	0.011
2013-14	22.4	0.513	0.467	0.251	0.009
Career Average	19.99	0.53	0.49	0.27	0.01

 
 
 
.
The 9.5 points better needs to be looked at in perspective with the pace of the game.  Minny is 2nd in the league in pace, so a +9.5 for them is less meaningful because of the scoring volume.  Love and his fellow starters average 93.7 FGAs per 48, the league average is 83 and the highest in the league is Philly at 88.2  Most teams that play at that pace simply dont win once it becomes playoff time so the numbers are somewhat fools gold.
 
On the Denver game, Minny also won by 27.  Jose Barea was a +15 in 18 min so if he played 30 he would have matched Loves 30+, Dante Cunningham was a +18 in 16 minutes....  Its really all a matter of perspective
 
Why is it a poor comparison to Al Jefferson?  Because you dont like the fact that their numbers are very comparable? 
 
Larrys career defensive rating was 101, Loves is 106.  Larrys first 4 years in the league it was 98 or 99.  He didnt play great defense but he played defense.  And if you want to talk about poor comparisons, dont put Love and Larry in the same passing class, thats utterly ridiculous.  Larry is one of the best passers of all time.  I guess Rondo is an excellent passer like Magic as well.
 
More specifically as to why they are different in 78/79 the Celts won 29 games the leaders in minutes played in this order were Cedric Maxwell, Chris Ford, Dave Cowens, Tiny Archibald, Jeff Judkins, JoJo White.  Birds rookie year was 79/80 the Celts won 61 games and the leaders in minutes played were Bird, Tiny Archibald, Cedric Maxwell, Dave Cowens, Chris Ford and ML Carr  They went from giving up 113 PPG to 106, and from scoring 108 to 113.5  While there were some other factors at play there, most of that was because of Larry and not just because of his numbers but because he made those around him better.  You cant document anything like that for Love, not even a fraction of that impact

 
That's not really true. Jefferson hasn't played more than 5% of his team's minutes at PF since he was in Minnesota, and even then he still spent the majority of his minutes as a 5. I think that's what PedroKsBambino is commenting on; that Love and Jefferson have similar numbers doesn't make them similar players. I, personally, think it's entirely possible to build a championship roster with Kevin Love as your best or second best player. And what's more, I think the Rondo, Parker, Love core that this discussion began with is a really, really good start to doing so. You'd need a shooter at the two, and an elite defensive 5, but that's a core three that any franchise should be extremely excited for the opportunity to build around. In fact, I actually sort of think that this entire discussion of Kevin Love's weaknesses almost seems to imply that the alternatives don't have weaknesses. Outside of a very small handful of players, every top 25 guy in the league comes with a glaring issue or two. Harden, Westbrook, Love, Curry, Howard, Irving, Rose, Griffin, Aldridge, etc. All of those guys have their weaknesses, but they're all guys any GM would leap at the chance to acquire. I'm really sort of baffled that the consensus here seems to be that a Rondo, Parker, Love core, however unlikely it may be, isn't worth pursuing. It leaves me wondering what is worth pursuing. If Kevin Love is only capable of being a #3 guy on a championship caliber team, then the NBA has about 25 teams too many.
 
Edit: Another quick point: If David Kahn takes Curry over Johnny Flynn, the way everybody knew he should, Kevin Love has made the playoffs and we're not having this discussion about whether or not his stats are hollow, or whatever. Organizations shape perception of players, and Love has had the misfortune of spending his career in a bad one. They have consistently misfired in the draft since taking him--Flynn and Rubio in 2009, Wes Johnson over Cousins in 2010, Derrick Williams in 2011, trading down this past year to take Dieng, etc. Sure, you'd like him to carry you a bit more than he has, but his GM's gotta meet him half way.
 
Last edit: It's also worth noting that last year's numbers, which drag Love down in his comparison to Aldridge across the board--particularly in shooting numbers--were all put up after he returned early from a broken shooting hand.

 

[ivanvamp]

I'm still surprised that Jonny Flynn isn't a better NBA player.  He's cat-quick, very strong, can make all kinds of shots, is a deft passer and good ball-handler.  He's not a great deep shooter, but lots of point guards are a little weak in that area.  

 

[Sam Ray Not]

Why is [Love] a poor comparison to Al Jefferson?  Because you dont like the fact that their numbers are very comparable? 

Haha.
 
As mentioned above, their games are totally different.
 
Love over his career has been a much more efficient scorer (.563 to .529 ts%), much better rebounder (13.6 to 10.6 rebounds per 36), and much better passer (2.5 to 1.5 assists per 36).
 
Love coming into this season had a stellar +5.3 cumulative RAPM (#7 among all NBA players) to Jefferson's +1.2 (#77).
 
Love this season has been a net +18.1 points per 100 possessions to Jefferson's +0.6.
 
They're "very comparable" in the sense that any two players can be compared. The better question is what on earth they have in common, other than the fact that they've both played for the Wolves. I suspect a Celtics forum may be the only place Al Jefferson would pop into anyone's head in the context of Kevin Love.
 
On a side note: we all know "PER" is bunk, right? It basically rewards volume-shooting above all else. LeBron has raised his scoring efficiency by over 80 points of ts relative to six years ago, and has seen his PER drop. I'm honestly surprised to see it referenced so frequently here.

 

[wutang112878]

 
That's not really true. Jefferson hasn't played more than 5% of his team's minutes at PF since he was in Minnesota, and even then he still spent the majority of his minutes as a 5. I think that's what PedroKsBambino is commenting on; that Love and Jefferson have similar numbers doesn't make them similar players. I, personally, think it's entirely possible to build a championship roster with Kevin Love as your best or second best player. And what's more, I think the Rondo, Parker, Love core that this discussion began with is a really, really good start to doing so. You'd need a shooter at the two, and an elite defensive 5, but that's a core three that any franchise should be extremely excited for the opportunity to build around. In fact, I actually sort of think that this entire discussion of Kevin Love's weaknesses almost seems to imply that the alternatives don't have weaknesses. Outside of a very small handful of players, every top 25 guy in the league comes with a glaring issue or two. Harden, Westbrook, Love, Curry, Howard, Irving, Rose, Griffin, Aldridge, etc. All of those guys have their weaknesses, but they're all guys any GM would leap at the chance to acquire. I'm really sort of baffled that the consensus here seems to be that a Rondo, Parker, Love core, however unlikely it may be, isn't worth pursuing. It leaves me wondering what is worth pursuing. If Kevin Love is only capable of being a #3 guy on a championship caliber team, then the NBA has about 25 teams too many.

 
I dont think we disagree, even with similar numbers they are different players, I was just pointing out the caliber of player.  As an example say baseball player A has an OPS of 800 with a low average and high HR total, and player B has an OPS of 800 with a high average and nonexistent HR total, they are both the same caliber they just get there differently.  I think Love (3s) and Al (low post expertise) just get there differently.
 
If you look at the Love / Rondo / Parker combo initially either Rondo or Love is your best player and its debatable if either can be an alpha dog and win, and more likely they each be your #2 and win.  But what makes it all work is Parker who would initially come in and be your #3 but he would be one of the best #3s in the league, and from a projection standpoint you would hope that he would eventually be your #1 guy.  At that point, coincidentally as their careers start to wind down, Parker becomes your alpha and Rondo and Love move to their ideal roles as #2 guys but you are fortunate enough to have two #2 caliber guys.  However, if Parker is just a regular #3 guy then I think you have a team that is good but not great.  Sort of like the Karl Malone / John Stockton / Jeff Hornacek Jazz, very good, always knocking on the door but just never plowing through.
 
 

Edit: Another quick point: If David Kahn takes Curry over Johnny Flynn, the way everybody knew he should, Kevin Love has made the playoffs and we're not having this discussion about whether or not his stats are hollow, or whatever. Organizations shape perception of players, and Love has had the misfortune of spending his career in a bad one. They have consistently misfired in the draft since taking him--Flynn and Rubio in 2009, Wes Johnson over Cousins in 2010, Derrick Williams in 2011, trading down this past year to take Dieng, etc. Sure, you'd like him to carry you a bit more than he has, but his GM's gotta meet him half way.
 
Last edit: It's also worth noting that last year's numbers, which drag Love down in his comparison to Aldridge across the board--particularly in shooting numbers--were all put up after he returned early from a broken shooting hand.

 
I feel like you are a little fired up about this.  But I do agree on the shaping of perception, and Love has had this working against him from Day1. 

 

[JakeRae]

It's all the same issues as above. Dallas drafted Dirk and went from a .244 winning percentage to a .380 immediately. The year after they were .488, and by Dirk's third year, the Mavericks perennially had amongst the best records in the NBA, making the playoffs every year, winning 65-75% of their games. Minnesota had a.268 W%, then drafted Love, and took them all the way to .293, .183, and .207 in the next three years. As a reminder, by that point, the Mavericks were winning more than 60% of their games. It's gotten a bit better since, (.394, .378, .472), but still not good by any stretch of the imagination. Bird is obviously in a different category entirely, being on a team that won at a .354 clip without him, to immediately winning 74.4% of their games with him, and winning the title his second year in the league.
 
Tiny Archibald is the closest anyone has come to finding a superstar with that kind of start to his career.
 
I know it sounds a bit like judging pitchers by W-L record, but given basketball is significantly more opaque, I don't think that's so crazy to consider this stuff for a basketball player. We don't have ERA to fall back on with Kevin Love. Even the best metrics aren't as good at adjusting for context as ERA is. I don't think it's the only thing we should look at, but it seems to me superstars tend to at least be able to drag their teams to .500 records or the playoffs. Maybe Love isn't that caliber of guy - maybe he's a 2nd tier star.

 
I had a post typed up last night that basically spoke to this concept. For those suggesting Love is an elite or a top 5 level player, he simply is not. Players of that caliber, in the NBA, can carry even the most putrid of teams to the playoffs more often than not. And, since the primary concern here is building a contender, I'm going to try to make this point anecdotally by looking at what the best players on recent championship teams have done in terms of their ability to consistently be in the playoffs. 
 
2013 Heat: Lebron has been in the playoffs every year except his first 2 seasons. Wade has been in the playoffs every season except 2008. Even Bosh was able to carry the Raptors to the playoffs in his 4th and 5th seasons prior to signing with Miami.
2012 Heat: See above.
2011 Mavs: Dirk made the playoffs the first time in his 3rd season in 2001. He was there every season until last year. Kidd made the playoffs in his 3rd year and then for 17 straight seasons. Marion has been in the playoffs 9 of his 13 seasons, and made it the first time as a rookie. Chandler made the playoffs for the first time in his 4th year and has only missed once since.
2010 Lakers: Kobe made the playoffs as a rookie, missed in 05 and last year. Gasol made the playoffs his 3rd year and missed in 07.
2009 Lakers: See 2010 Lakers.
2008 Celtics: KG made the playoffs his second season, was in for the next 8, then missed 3 years, and has been back in since. Pierce made the playoffs in his 4th season and missed the 2 years pre-KG. Ray Allen made the playoffs his 3rd year, stayed in for 3 in a row, then only made 1 in the next 7 before coming to Boston.
2007 Spurs: Their stars have all spent their whole careers in the playoffs.
 
As a note on the above stats, I am using playoff stats to determine playoff presence, so I am sure a few "misses" are due to injury. I fixed this for Duncan in 2000 and KG in 2009, but am too lazy to dig deep as these stats are really about painting a picture, not making a statistical argument. The Lakers, Spurs, and Heat teams that fill out last decade all probably don't require further elaboration. But, the two main players that haven't been previously discussed are Robinson, who missed the playoffs twice in his career, and Shaq, who only missed his rookie year. Even the Pistons were led by a star, in Rasheed, who spent every season except his rookie year in the playoffs.
 
In other words, it is pretty much impossible to find a guy who has been the second best player on a playoff team who wasn't capable of carrying an NBA team into the playoffs, let alone a guy capable of being the best player on a championship team. Great NBA players spend virtually their entire careers in the playoffs with rare exceptions. Judging whether a player is elite on this ground is kind of like judging quarterbacks on whether they are consistently in the playoffs. The fact that they've done it doesn't mean they are great. But, the fact that a player hasn't is quite strong evidence that they are not at that level.

 

[nighthob]

I think the Rondo, Parker, Love core that this discussion began with is a really, really good start to doing so. You'd need a shooter at the two, and an elite defensive 5, but that's a core three that any franchise should be extremely excited for the opportunity to build around.

If by "elite defensive 5" you mean "someone at least as good as Dwight Howard circa 2009-2010" then I agree. The problem is that those guys are a rarity. And one that Boston would be unlikely to fill.

 

[ivanvamp]

I guess I'm just of the opinion that you can't win championships without stars.  They can *hopefully* get one future star in this year's lottery.  Rondo is a star of sorts - really good player, but can't carry a team.  And so they need, IMO, another star.  And there just aren't many stars potentially available.  And again, caveat:  Love might not be available.  But I think he can be had.  
 
And so you use some of this vast pile of chips you've accumulated to get that star.  Rondo/Love/Lottery Guy may not be enough to win a championship.  But it might be.  And even if it isn't, it should still be a group that wins a ton of games and is always in the hunt.  

 

[JakeRae]

I guess I'm just of the opinion that you can't win championships without stars.  They can *hopefully* get one future star in this year's lottery.  Rondo is a star of sorts - really good player, but can't carry a team.  And so they need, IMO, another star.  And there just aren't many stars potentially available.  And again, caveat:  Love might not be available.  But I think he can be had.  
 
And so you use some of this vast pile of chips you've accumulated to get that star.  Rondo/Love/Lottery Guy may not be enough to win a championship.  But it might be.  And even if it isn't, it should still be a group that wins a ton of games and is always in the hunt.  

But, would it be better than Rondo, Sullinger, Lottery Guy, 3 more 1st round picks, and the cap space to sign a max FA to join them?

 

[Grin&MartyBarret]

 
I dont think we disagree, even with similar numbers they are different players, I was just pointing out the caliber of player.  As an example say baseball player A has an OPS of 800 with a low average and high HR total, and player B has an OPS of 800 with a high average and nonexistent HR total, they are both the same caliber they just get there differently.  I think Love (3s) and Al (low post expertise) just get there differently.
 
If you look at the Love / Rondo / Parker combo initially either Rondo or Love is your best player and its debatable if either can be an alpha dog and win, and more likely they each be your #2 and win.  But what makes it all work is Parker who would initially come in and be your #3 but he would be one of the best #3s in the league, and from a projection standpoint you would hope that he would eventually be your #1 guy.  At that point, coincidentally as their careers start to wind down, Parker becomes your alpha and Rondo and Love move to their ideal roles as #2 guys but you are fortunate enough to have two #2 caliber guys.  However, if Parker is just a regular #3 guy then I think you have a team that is good but not great.  Sort of like the Karl Malone / John Stockton / Jeff Hornacek Jazz, very good, always knocking on the door but just never plowing through.
 
 
 
I feel like you are a little fired up about this.  But I do agree on the shaping of perception, and Love has had this working against him from Day1. 

 
No, not fired up at all, just cobbling together a bunch of random thoughts after a quick post. Mostly, I just think NBA fans have a collective tendency to cast players aside too quickly without considering context. It's happening to Kyrie Irving and Kevin Love this season, and it feels way too early to make determinations in both cases. In loves case, I think he's had to deal with playing in a bad organization, bad luck (the TWolves have never really been healthy, especially last year), bad systems, bad coaching, and playing in the Western conference, and with all of those factors it's just difficult for me to come away by concluding that there's something inherent to the way Kevin Love plays basketball that makes his teams under-perform, and that that will always be there, regardless of how you tinker with the aforementioned factors.
 
Also, for what it's worth: I think Kevin Love is an entirely different caliber of player than Al Jefferson. And I don't think it's even particularly close, honestly.