Did the quiet Grizzlies beat the star-studded Spurs in free agency?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cd98

The real question is did the Grizzlies sign someone that can make a jumpshot?

---

I hear Brandon Wright can shoot 4 foot lefty pop-a-shots...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blake

bleacher report trying to get clicks.

Spurs signed LA, West, Kawhi, Manu, Tim and Danny

Easy no.

---

+1

If the lakers had signed the exact same lineup the media would already be handing them the championship! With that said I love the fact that the Spurs are still somewhat the underdogs.

Quote:

---

Meanwhile, Memphis lost Kosta Koufos, who earned three Win Shares in 2014-15. They added Matt Barnes (3.5) and Brandan Wright (6.5!) in his stead. That's a net plus-7 Win Shares for the Grizzlies, and when added to their 55 wins from 2014-15 gives them 62 expected wins next season. That eclipses everyone but Golden State. Now, the Wright number looks high per our eyeballs, and the Koufos number seems low. Like I said, it's imperfect. But it's certainly something worth exploring further.

---

I like how he says it's worth exploring further and then doesn't explore it further.

But... I didn't realize they signed Matt Barnes. That's actually a really nice pickup for them. He's a douche and isn't starter material for most teams, but that team is scary with wing production.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by K...

Ok next question. I know most people said gasol >lma but now that lma is a spur who wants to backtrack and give a homerish revision to their opinion?


I legitimately think lma in a spurs system will exceed gasol in Memphis.

---

Insider information was that Spurs were interested in Gasol first but realized they couldn't persuade him so they went with Aldridge.

The article is kinda silly because it says based on win shares LMA + West = 8.6+4.3=12.9 and Splitter + Cojo + Marco + Baynes = 4.0+1.8+3.9+2.9 = 12.6. So it looks like a lateral move.

In reality LMA + West = 12.9 and Splitter + Marco = 7.9, and that's what we should be looking at. Because Cojo at 1.8 is same as McCallum at 1.4, and probably Cojo benefits from playing with the spurs. Baynes shouldn't have played that many minutes last year to begin with.

I still think that it will be a race of 4 teams; OKC, Davs, SAS and one of Grizzles, Rockets, and Clippers. Grizzles actually did a good job this off season, I wouldn't be surprised if there were up there with the Spurs and Warriors.

Here's a better article using 'real plus minus': http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/t...warriors-good/

Does not include numbers for McCallum (Simmons or Marjanovic) but the numbers look great!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maj_G

The article is kinda silly because it says based on win shares LMA + West = 8.6+4.3=12.9 and Splitter + Cojo + Marco + Baynes = 4.0+1.8+3.9+2.9 = 12.6. So it looks like a lateral move.

In reality LMA + West = 12.9 and Splitter + Marco = 7.9, and that's what we should be looking at. Because Cojo at 1.8 is same as McCallum at 1.4, and probably Cojo benefits from playing with the spurs. Baynes shouldn't have played that many minutes last year to begin with.

I still think that it will be a race of 4 teams; OKC, Davs, SAS and one of Grizzles, Rockets, and Clippers. Grizzles actually did a good job this off season, I wouldn't be surprised if there were up there with the Spurs and Warriors.

---

Should be more apples with apples. So LMA+West = 12.9 vs Splitter+Baynes = 6.9 ... so 6 difference. Cojo vs McCallum is a wash. Marco is 3.9 which still highlights the loss of that extra shooter (who was absent most of the time in playoffs).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ceperez

Here's a better article using 'real plus minus': http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/t...warriors-good/

Does not include numbers for McCallum (Simmons or Marjanovic) but the numbers look great!

---

Yep..one of the starters is a net negative, though, unfortunately..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chinook

I've never seen a team force-fed into contender status like Memphis (though the Bulls are close). That team's still living off its 2011 upset.

---

they did make the WCF in '13 too, but yeah i agree

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ceperez

Here's a better article using 'real plus minus': http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/t...warriors-good/

Does not include numbers for McCallum (Simmons or Marjanovic) but the numbers look great!

---

:lol the spurs rating is dragged down by mulitunov and lalanne, neither of whom will likely be on the roster. they combine for -5.4. tack on reggie williams and that's -8.7 from 3 guys who wont be on the roster

Crapola article.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ceperez

Should be more apples with apples. So LMA+West = 12.9 vs Splitter+Baynes = 6.9 ... so 6 difference. Cojo vs McCallum is a wash. Marco is 3.9 which still highlights the loss of that extra shooter (who was absent most of the time in playoffs).

---

Makes sense if you look at positions. I looked at minutes played because win shares is supposed to be "position-less".

I agree our bigs this year are way better than last year, and even though it seems Marco left a gap with his 3pt shooting and 3.9 win shares it wont matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HarlemHeat37

Yep..one of the starters is a net negative, though, unfortunately..

---

Sons - I'd be willing to do a bet that TP is a net-positive player this year..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DPG21920

Sons - I'd be willing to do a bet that TP is a net-positive player this year..

---

I wouldn't be so quick to make that bet, unfortunately. Tony is at that age where speedy PGs start to rapidly decline.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Robz4000

I wouldn't be so quick to make that bet, unfortunately. Tony is at that age where speedy PGs start to rapidly decline.

---

Well the bet is out there..

Win shares is quickly becoming the most over-rated stat in sports. It's how people like this writer futiley determine that the Grizzlies had the best FA season. I was listening to a podcast the other day on the top 50 NBA players according to the two podcasters. They routinely used win shares as their main determinant. It was sad to listen to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ceperez

Here's a better article using 'real plus minus': http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/t...warriors-good/

Does not include numbers for McCallum (Simmons or Marjanovic) but the numbers look great!

---

Take off the -3.3 for WIlliams, -2.7 for Bonner, -2.5 for Milutinov, -2/9 for Lalanne and it's even better

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spurraider21

:lol the spurs rating is dragged down by mulitunov and lalanne, neither of whom will likely be on the roster. they combine for -5.4. tack on reggie williams and that's -8.7 from 3 guys who wont be on the roster

---

They adjust for minutes played, hence the projected minutes per game column. Guys like Milutinov and Lalanne have practically no effect on the overall team number since they're projected to play a combined 3 mpg.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DPG21920

Well the bet is out there..

---

Might have to take you up on it I guess. Lemme wait til preseason/training camp to see what kinda condition he's in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DPG21920

Sons - I'd be willing to do a bet that TP is a net-positive player this year..

---

Nah, I don't wanna bet against a player on my own team, tbh..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HarlemHeat37

Nah, I don't wanna bet against a player on my own team, tbh..

---

:lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Robz4000

Might have to take you up on it I guess. Lemme wait til preseason/training camp to see what kinda condition he's in.

---

:lol Where is the value in that for me? So you watch him and he looks awful, then sure you would want to bet. Why would I though?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HarlemHeat37

The Grizzlies are a product of nostalgia, tbh..they remind today's media(most of them grew up on 90s ball) and older fans of the "good ol' days" of slow pace, 2 bigs in the paint + perimeter defenders with no offensive skills, not relying on 3s, etc..they are all so desperate for a team like that to win a title:lol..

Look at the NBA Forum and see how excited Lefty got when the Grizz were up 2-1 on the Warriors, tbh:lmao..looked like a 10-year old that just discovered porn..

---

They are a rich conference 's Bulls, tbh :lol

I'm with DPG. Maybe I'm just being an optimistic homer, but I refuse to believe Parker will play as poorly as he did last year. I think he'll come back next year and play somewhere around how he did in the 2014 regular season. He won't be an all-star or anything, but he'll at least contribute and won't submarine the damn team every time he steps out on the court like this past year :lol I think replacing Splitter with Aldridge will open up some room in the paint for TP/Kawhi.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DPG21920

:lol Where is the value in that for me? So you watch him and he looks awful, then sure you would want to bet. Why would I though?

---

I'm not 100% confident that he'll be a net-negative, just pointing out that history suggests he may be. I'm hoping for the best, but expecting the worst. The only saving grace is that he'll only be asked to be the third option instead of 1A/1B, which should lessen the burden on his shoulders/stomach...