Mavs 118 Queens 100

[thurst0509]

Originally Posted by grndmstr_c

I'm going to come to Carroll's defense a little bit here. His shot wasn't falling, he was unsuccessful when he tried to shake his man off of picks, and there were a few plays that just didn't go his way out there, but I still felt like I saw a guy who did a decent job staying in front of his man on defense (and lets not forget that if there's one thing the Kings don't lack its offensively gifted 2/3s, so they present a challenge in that respect), and who did a pretty good job recovering to his man on rotations, as well. I'm more than willing to give him more chances to see if he can get his stroke going.

As for his +/-, a few qualifiers on the reliability of this particular sample. One is that 7 of those -17 came in the last 5 minutes of the game, and only meant the difference between a 25 point win and an 18 point win. A second thing to note is that the Kings had some stretches tonight where they were flinging fairly ill-advised three point attempts that were nonetheless going in. It's possible (likely) that Carroll had the misfortune of being out there while some of that was going on. Finally, it's been discussed that Kidd's +/- was pretty sick tonight. It's worth pointing out, then, that Carroll was +2 in the 6 or so minutes he played with Kidd, and -19 in the 12 minutes he played without him. Considering he wasn't playing backup pg, perhaps we should exercise some caution before getting carried away with this particular one-game sample.

At any rate, the bottom line on this topic is, I think, the same as the bottom line on the game as a whole: Kidd was the dominant force. It's really quite extraordinary that a guy who's neither a gifted scorer nor an explosive athlete could have that kind of impact.

Props to Wright for a very strong effort, and to Josh for showing some hustle and fire out there, too.

Great post. I was about to come to Carroll's defense because I noticed several of the same things you pointed out, but you laid it out much more sensibly than I possibly could have.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

to juxtapose Kidd's +39, Carroll was a whopping -17. That's quite spectacular when your team as a whole is +18. Carroll on his own was a big 35 points worse than his own team tonight.

I'd give him a few games, though. You don't shoot 40% from 3 over multiple seasons on accident. He needs confidence, and the only way a shooter gets it is to make a few. Besides, we are in desperate need of a guaranteed weakside 3 ptr off the bench.

He's not nearly aggressive enough with the ball. He settles too easily and once he had it in the paint and kicked it out before a defender got to him.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by jthig32

On the the other side of the paint, around the other block is not "near Josh" when he's posting. It was a terrible point by Bob. He was basically insinuating that you can't post anyone on the block when you also have a center in the game.

However this is one of the reasons I wish the NBA would go to the international lane configuration. The other is that you can't just bang a guy until you are under the basket..A wider lane would prevent that...more guys would have to operate closer to the elbow.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by jthig32

Josh had five assists last night, and over the course of the past two weeks has really been playing well within the offense.

Yup...I was going to repost my continuing feeling that josh is an island....he just doesn't get anyone involved or make anyone better. But then he tosses 5 assists out there and scuttles me.

[Usually Lurkin]

I want to point out that I'm not hammering on Carroll, just his performance this game. I don't think it's representative of someone that has performed adequately in the league for multiple years, but he was entirely timid and scared last night and it does show in the box score.

Originally Posted by grndmstr_c

One is that 7 of those -17 came in the last 5 minutes of the game, and only meant the difference between a 25 point win and an 18 point win.

only??? If there had been only a 10 point cushion, then the 7 point swing would have put the game in jeopardy. Losing 7 points off a lead in 5 minutes against the bench scrub of the worst team in the league is not a very good rationalization.

A second thing to note is that the Kings had some stretches tonight where they were flinging fairly ill-advised three point attempts that were nonetheless going in. It's possible (likely) that Carroll had the misfortune of being out there while some of that was going on.

sure, but would you also call it *misfortune* that at the same time, a couple of his well-advised shots were not going in? Or that in his 18 minutes he collected no rebounds, steals, or assists but did collect 3 fouls?

Finally, it's been discussed that Kidd's +/- was pretty sick tonight. It's worth pointing out, then, that Carroll was +2 in the 6 or so minutes he played with Kidd, and -19 in the 12 minutes he played without him.

Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but it looks like his total for time shared with Kidd was at best 0 (http://popcornmachine.net/cgi-bin/ga...10&game=SACDAL). That means that all of Kidd's +39 came in non-Carroll time, or that Carroll reduced Kidd's production to 0 for 6 minutes or so (edit: or that it took the absolute brilliant genius of Kidd's play to put a damper on Carroll's suck).

At any rate, the bottom line on this topic is, I think, the same as the bottom line on the game as a whole: Kidd was the dominant force.

yeah, it's entirely dependent on who else was on the floor during those Sacramento runs (ahem, George). What we can conclude from plus minuses is only that Carroll was in all of the worst lineups for the Mavs last night.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

only??? If there had been only a 10 point cushion, then the 7 point swing would have put the game in jeopardy. Losing 7 points off a lead in 5 minutes against the bench scrub of the worst team in the league is not a very good rationalization.

If there was only a 10-point cushion, Carroll wouldn't have been in the game in the first place...

Plus, losing 7 points off a 25 point lead in 5 minutes is something that commonly happens when you load the floor with your bench at the end of a basketball game - that's why they call it "garbage time"...

[alby]

Furthermore, if we were going to closely judge players by what they do in garbage time, Gerald Green should be a future hall of famer =]

[grndmstr_c]

only??? If there had been only a 10 point cushion, then the 7 point swing would have put the game in jeopardy. Losing 7 points off a lead in 5 minutes against the bench scrub of the worst team in the league is not a very good rationalization.

I, and many others who enjoy statistics, are of the opinion that stuff that happens in games that are effectively over because of limited time remaining and a whopping point differential is simply not very informative. Particularly with a small sample size. And if you're going to criticize my point because of the Kings' bench scrubs, then I have two resposnes: 1) please take the extra step and tell me what all-star lineup was out there with Carroll to close the game, and 2) the Kings don't suck because their end-of-benchers are worse than other teams' end-of-benchers. They suck because their starters regularly get their asses handed to them

sure, but would you also call it *misfortune* that at the same time, a couple of his well-advised shots were not going in? Or that in his 18 minutes he collected no rebounds, steals, or assists but did collect 3 fouls?

I think Carroll's history as a shooter speaks for itself. Whether he finds the touch again in a Mavs uniform is an open question. As for the rest of it, the Mavs were +21 in the rebounding department last night, so if we're taking bets on who was getting those rebounds that Carroll wasn't getting I think we're much safer putting our money on Damp than on whoever Carroll was supposed to be blocking out. Steals are not his game, and it's hardly unheard of for a guy to not record a steal in less than 20 minutes of playing time. And how are you going to get an assist when you barely ever get to touch the ball?

Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but it looks like his total for time shared with Kidd was at best 0 (http://popcornmachine.net/cgi-bin/ga...10&game=SACDAL). That means that all of Kidd's +39 came in non-Carroll time, or that Carroll reduced Kidd's production to 0 for 6 minutes or so (edit: or that it took the absolute brilliant genius of Kidd's play to put a damper on Carroll's suck).

I think you're misreading the game flow. Kidd and Carroll shared the court towards the ends of the 1st and 3rd quarters. And just to put some context on the Carroll's +/- without Kidd, consider JJB's +/- (you know, JJB, the guy who actually backs up Kidd on this team): +18 with Kidd on the floor, -21 without.

And lest my actual opinion on the matter get lost in these volleys, I'm not saying Carroll played a good game last night. He underperformed in the areas he's traditionally strongest in, and he didn't make an impact elsewhere. If he doesn't bring more to the table in the next few games, he'll probably find himself watching DG take his minutes from the bench. But I also don't think he was the giant puddle of suck the +/- last night makes him out to be, and it's that over-interpretation alone that I sought to defend him from.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by grndmstr_c

I, and many others who enjoy statistics, are of the opinion that stuff that happens in games that are effectively over because of limited time remaining and a whopping point differential is simply not very informative.

eh. If it were to continue, the starters would have to be put back in. And if you don't think playing well during that time is important to the folks that get those precious few minutes of court time, you probably have an argument with coaches and players alike on your hand. And if you don't think performing poorly against a bunch of folk who amount to bench fodder on the worst team in the NBA is a negative, you and I will have to disagree.

I think Carroll's history as a shooter speaks for itself.

Me too. And it has been (and hopefully will be) better than last night. He missed some that we really need him (or someone) to make.

As for the rest of it, the Mavs were +21 in the rebounding ... And how are you going to get an assist when you barely ever get to touch the ball?

are you suggesting that the mavs performed well while he was on the court? OR that his lack of rebounds, assists, steals, etc. should be counted as production for him? Otherwise, all you can say is that he didn't produce, and he didn't stop the other team from producing.

I think you're misreading the game flow. Kidd and Carroll shared the court towards the ends of the 1st and 3rd quarters.

and Carroll was +2 in the 1st with Kidd and -2 in the third with Kidd, meaning that he (and everyone else on the court during that time, including Kidd) was at +/- 0.

And lest my actual opinion on the matter get lost in these volleys....

we probably agree on actual opinion of the matter, and are just running through academic debate on the usefulness of +/-. We agree also, it sounds like, that he was stuck in the middle of some +/- suck that really says a lot more about the Mavs bench than about any individual player. But last night, as a result of fate, fortune, or his own suck, Carroll was one very prototypical exemplar of the suck of the Mavs bench.

[grndmstr_c]

eh. If it were to continue, the starters would have to be put back in. And if you don't think playing well during that time is important to the folks that get those precious few minutes of court time, you probably have an argument with coaches and players alike on your hand.

Sorry, but if professional athletes occasionally need to be cussed out in order to play like they mean it while the game is still on the line (and any coach will tell you they'd like their jobs better if that weren't the case), then why on earth would you expect that you're necessarily going to get passionate, heady play in the closing minutes of a blow out? There's a reason most statistical player evaluation tools (including the one the Mavs use) weight results according to whether the outcome of the game is still in doubt.

And if you don't think performing poorly against a bunch of folk who amount to bench fodder on the worst team in the NBA is a negative, you and I will have to disagree.
...
are you suggesting that the mavs performed well while he was on the court? OR that his lack of rebounds, assists, steals, etc. should be counted as production for him?

You're just setting up straw man versions of my arguments here that philosophically accord neither with what I've said, nor with what I think. So I guess my response is that by attributing such claims to me you're just flat out off base.

and Carroll was +2 in the 1st with Kidd and -2 in the third with Kidd, meaning that he (and everyone else on the court during that time, including Kidd) was at +/- 0.

Popcornmachine has them at +4 together in the first quarter.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by grndmstr_c

then why on earth would you expect that you're necessarily going to get passionate, heady play in the closing minutes of a blow out?

because people like Carroll need to make a case for themselves with every minute they are on the floor. If I were to judge by last night alone, and not credit him several years of adequate production, I'd be hard pressed to give him another meaningful minute of basketball.

You're just setting up straw man versions of my arguments here that philosophically accord neither with what I've said, nor with what I think. So I guess my response is that by attributing such claims to me you're just flat out off base.

straw men? My whole point is that Carroll didn't produce, and that the opponent produced while Carroll was on the court. The number of 0's on his stat line and the 3 fouls in 18 minutes speak to that. You claim that Carroll didn't need to rebound, or make assists or steals because those weren't, in effect, his job last night. I think that's a fair summary of what you posted, and it leaves us only with the conclusion that Carroll did not produce. (this also strikes me as a strange defense for him. You agree that he didn't quite live up to expectation in his role last night, and here your defense for him is that he had a very limited role to focus on.)

Popcornmachine has them at +4 together in the first quarter.

ok. I see where you read that. Thanks. My point still stands. You can compare Carroll's mediocre +/- while Kidd is on the court with his atrocious +/- while Kidd is off the court and come to some conclusion. If you do that, though, you should also be willing to compare Kidd's mediocre +/- while Carroll is on the court with Kidd's absolutely brilliant +/- while Carroll is off the court, and also come to some conclusions.

[grndmstr_c]

I can only surmise that you're continuing to question my judgment on this because you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. At any rate, I'm not going to belabor the point any further. I think I was clear enough in stating my intentions in offering the defense of Carroll that I offered, and I stand by the arguments I offered to that end.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by grndmstr_c

I can only surmise that you're continuing to question my judgment on this because you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. At any rate, I'm not going to belabor the point any further. I think I was clear enough in stating my intentions in offering the defense of Carroll that I offered, and I stand by the arguments I offered to that end.

just as a matter of conclusion, are you saying that Carroll did not do very well, but that his +/- had a lot of fluky stuff go against him? If so, I'll say I agree with that and offer you thanks for the opportunity to explore +/- a little more.

[grndmstr_c]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

just as a matter of conclusion, are you saying that Carroll did not do very well, but that his +/- had a lot of fluky stuff go against him? If so, I'll say I agree with that and offer you thanks for the opportunity to explore +/- a little more.

Yeah, that's a fair way of putting it.

[Dirkadirkastan]

Carroll was one of three players to have a positive +/- in Boston.

Discuss.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan

Carroll was one of three players to have a positive +/- in Boston.

Discuss.

um, he's got an ok haircut?

[Zki41]

The guy did more than Diop did this season. To me, that's all that matters.

[TheMaverick]

Originally Posted by Zki41

The guy did more than Diop did this season. To me, that's all that matters.

I agree with this statement. Although, Carroll has not performed to his expectations... I think addition by subtraction with Diop has paid its dividends.