Celtics trade for Thornton, Zeller and a Pick

[reggiecleveland]

I cannot imagine what the naysayers would post if Danny let the exception expire. If LeBron doesn't go to the Cave then there is a good chance Wiggins etc gets them to 11th worst team and the Celtics get the 11th pick.

Zeller should be a good rotation guy.

 

[Boon]

The pick the Celtics are sending to Cleveland is top-55 protected in '15. Only way the Cavs get it is if C's are a top-5 team next season.

Per [twitter]@Marc_DAmico[/twitter]
 
So, basically they got two players and a first-rounder for nothing.  

 

[86spike]

 
 
The only downside is if this helps the Nets long term. And I don't think it does help them beyond 2014/15. If I were a Nets fans I would rather keep the only decent young guy on the roster, and adding these contracts just sends the Nets further into cap hell in 2015/16.
 
 
 

 
Thornton was the only decent young guy on the Nets roster?
 
Brook Lopez: 26
Mason Plumlee: 24
Mirza Teletovic: 28
 
Marcus Thornton: 27
 
This move is a fine one for the Nets.  They needed another PG to back up Deron (until this move his back ups were Marquis Teague and Jorge Guitierez) and Jack's annual salary is lower than what Thornton was making.  Jack's deal has a $500K buy out after the 15/16 season as well, so they can cut him then when all their other big money deals expire and position themselves for a big addition that summer when the next wave of big name FAs arrive.
 
On top of that, Karasev is a young lottery ticket type guy who was recently the #19 pick in the draft.  The Nets need to find some youth like him to gamble on since they traded away their own picks (as you all well know).
 
All 3 teams in this deal made solid moves given their objectives (Cleveland: clear cap space; Boston: Amass assets for rebuild; Brooklyn: find a back up PG and gamble on some youth). 

 

[Sprowl]

I suspect when the details of this trade come out fully, it'll be an Ainge special top 55 protected second round pick going to Cleveland, which gets extinguished to nothing after a year.
 
I think it's only in there because Cleveland has to receive something in the trade.
 
Not that it should really matter. Zeller, who's a decent young backup center at a minimum, and a #1 for taking on one year of Marcus Thornton is a pretty strong deal.

 
Good call.

 

[moly99]

 
Thornton was the only decent young guy on the Nets roster?
 
Brook Lopez: 26
Mason Plumlee: 24
Mirza Teletovic: 28
 
Marcus Thornton: 27

 
Plumlee is the only young guy. 26 is not young in the NBA. I certainly don't think of Rondo (28) or Jeff Green (27) as young players either.

 

[86spike]

 
Plumlee is the only young guy. 26 is not young in the NBA. I certainly don't think of Rondo (28) or Jeff Green (27) as young players either.

 
then neither was Thornton

 

[moly99]

Sorry, I meant Plumlee is the only one left on the Nets. I temporarily confused Plumlee (Nets) with Zeller (Cavs.)

 

[pdaj]

The Cavs have to feel pretty good about Lebron in order to make this deal, right? James, to me, has always seemed to care a lot about how he's perceived; and from all accounts, the media/fan backlash following "the decision" bothered him a great deal. Going back to Cleveland would make him a bonafide "good guy" again, especially in his home state. 
 
But if he chooses to return to Miami, this deal get a whole lot better.

 

[Koufax]

This deal is looking better and better the more I see of Tyler Zeller.  He's strong, pretty athletic and seems to have a knack for putting the ball in the basket.   Not a bad haul in exchange for nothing.

 

[Brickowski]

Zeller plays the way decent centers used to play before the NBA got 3-point happy.

 

[HomeRunBaker]

Zeller is a fundamentally sound center with limited skills. He has worked very well with Rondo on screen and rolls which has gotten him some confidence. He's playing well for what he is a backup 5. One of his greatest strengths is recognizing his limitations however he's been a fouling machine on the defensive end which has hurt us at times.

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

Zeller is a fundamentally sound center with limited skills. He has worked very well with Rondo on screen and rolls which has gotten him some confidence. He's playing well for what he is a backup 5. One of his greatest strengths is recognizing his limitations however he's been a fouling machine on the defensive end which has hurt us at times.

 
Zeller has been playing marginally - again marginally - better than a backup center.  Among some odd stats for him, he's the most efficient scorer in the NBA - 86.4% percent of possessions finished that result in at least one point; 1.636 points per play finished - and he tops the team in both defensive rebound rate (23 percent) and overall rebound percentage (16.5).  In addition, while he doesn't pass the ball a lot (who would, since he's 10 of 12 from the floor - and interestingly enough, none of his baskets have included a dribble), he has seven assists on his 78 total, which apparently translates to a 57.5 eFG percentage.
 
As for defense, he's allowing 54.8 FG% from less than 5 feet; 35.7 FG% from 5-9 feet, and 30.0% from 10-14 feet, which seems respectable.  (For example, Kendrick Perkins is at 54.2% / 33.3% / 42.1% and Cody Zeller is at 54.8% / 27.3% / 35.3%).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
one link:  http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/celtics/post/_/id/4715612/zeller-scoring-with-surprising-efficiency.
link with some interesting sportsvu stats:  http://www.celticsblog.com/2014/11/10/7185049/introducing-boston-celtics-fans-to-nba-com-sportvu-statistics-rondo-sullinger-turner-bradley-olynyk

 

[Blacken]

Zeller plays the way decent centers used to play before the NBA got 3-point happy.

You mean before they figured out (at least partially) how the game actually works?

It's like you can't get through a single post without grinding one of your absurdly many axes.

 

[luckiestman]

You mean before they figured out (at least partially) how the game actually works?

It's like you can't get through a single post without grinding one of your absurdly many axes.

 
 
I can't decide if what you are saying is true. Are there fewer traditional centers because their value decreased i.e teams dont want them, or did the game adapt to a limited supply of skilled big men (this is what I assumed to be the case). I mean Dwight Howard is about as traditional as it gets and he can absolutely dominate games on both ends of the floor. Tyson Chandler and Deandre are super limited offensively but their ability to D up in a traditional way gives them a ton of value.  
 
When I watch old nba games I never think to myself that the good centers in those games would be out of the league, but I'm not a huge Xs and 0s guy, Im just a celtics fan, so it is possible that I am off base.

 

[bowiac]

The stretch 5 is not yet a major factor in the league. Zeller's mediocrity doesn't seem to strike as me as related to the three point shot.

 

[Blacken]

Q: Why do you shoot three-point shots?

A: Because they're worth three points!

Here is the top eFG% for players with at least 60 shots. It's cutters, three-point shooters, Dirk, and Dwight. This isn't because there aren't competent big men in the league, at least as "competent" would have been defined in the 90's. Let's be real, it's not like most of Shaq's contemporaries at the 5 were particularly great. Modern centers aren't significantly worse, it's just that outside shooting has gotten better because teams are willing to prioritize the shot that gets you more points per try because why the heck wouldn't you?

Video game players figured this out a long time ago: threes and layups. And in that vein, there's a lot of value in interior defense (no layups!), but from an offensive standpoint, the center is de-emphasized because it's an inefficient (relative to pace) way to run an offense. The name of the game is "optimize scoring rate and possessions". Fewer chances at the other team's basket means fewer points. Everybody has a bunch of small-ball/four-out in their playbook for the same reason that you rob a bank: because that's where the money is.
 

The stretch 5 is not yet a major factor in the league. Zeller's mediocrity doesn't seem to strike as me as related to the three point shot.

Totally. Zeller's a JAG, I don't have anything against him. He's fine. Brick's days-of-yore bullshit makes me real tired, though.

 

[Eddie Jurak]

 
Zeller has been playing marginally - again marginally - better than a backup center.  Among some odd stats for him, he's the most efficient scorer in the NBA - 86.4% percent of possessions finished that result in at least one point; 1.636 points per play finished - and he tops the team in both defensive rebound rate (23 percent) and overall rebound percentage (16.5).  In addition, while he doesn't pass the ball a lot (who would, since he's 10 of 12 from the floor - and interestingly enough, none of his baskets have included a dribble), he has seven assists on his 78 total, which apparently translates to a 57.5 eFG percentage.
 

The flip side of the scoring efficiency is that he's a very low usage player (lowest on the team besides whatever is left of Gerald Wallace).  I'm also not sure if any of his 14 shots was an actual shot (as opposed to a layup or dunk).  
 
On the positive side, though, he also has been able to get to the line (and hit his free throws), he's always ready for the pass from Rondo, he rebounds, and he hasn't been a turnover waiting to happen.
 
Good value for the price (basically nothing).

 

[Brickowski]

 
Totally. Zeller's a JAG, I don't have anything against him. He's fine. Brick's days-of-yore bullshit makes me real tired, though.

Why? I wasn't deriding the three point shot from centers or anyone else.  Olynyk ought to take as many as he can.  I was just trying to describe Zeller's game as a little bit of a throwback to a time when bigs were supposed to play in the paint, and I think that description is accurate.

 

[zenter]

Why? I wasn't deriding the three point shot from centers or anyone else.  Olynyk ought to take as many as he can.  I was just trying to describe Zeller's game as a little bit of a throwback to a time when bigs were supposed to play in the paint, and I think that description is accurate.

 
I think the criticism comes from your quasi-originalism, emphasized above. There is no "supposed to" in sports, other than what the rules restrict and allow.
 
Bigs played the paint, but the numbers tell us this was a suboptimal usage of those people... The same way a 1950s V12 is suboptimal versus a modern straight-6 in terms of both power and gas mileage (ie, efficiency).
 
The moment the 1979-80 season started, teams were playing in a woefully suboptimal way. We're only now reaching towards optimal play. Perhaps the best representation of this optimization are LeBron, KD, and Anthony Davis, for whom no aspect of the game is out of reach.

 

[Blacken]

Can I hire you as my translator?

 

[Koufax]

If Zeller has been playing marginally better than a backup center, that (plus a first round pick) is a pretty good haul for a second round pick.  I wasn't suggesting that he was a stud, only that he belongs on an NBA roster and I'm glad the Celtics were able to get him for a bag of balls.
 
Brick's point was correct -  Zeller plays the way centers used to be expected to play.  He wasn't saying that was a good thing, he was describing Zeller's style of play. 

 

[knucklecup]

You mean before they figured out (at least partially) how the game actually works?

If the game "works" the way you say it does, why is the game played so differently in the playoffs?

 

[knucklecup]

Brick's point was correct -  Zeller plays the way centers used to be expected to play.  He wasn't saying that was a good thing, he was describing Zeller's style of play. 

This is true.

 

[Cellar-Door]

If the game "works" the way you say it does, why is the game played so differently in the playoffs?

It isn't? Actually last year most playoff teams took a larger percentage of their shots from 3 than they did in the regular season.

 

[Blacken]

If the game "works" the way you say it does, why is the game played so differently in the playoffs?

It's not (except to increase the use of high-efficiency-per-pace strategies even further). Next question.

 

[Brickowski]

 
I think the criticism comes from your quasi-originalism, emphasized above. There is no "supposed to" in sports, other than what the rules restrict and allow.
 
Bigs played the paint, but the numbers tell us this was a suboptimal usage of those people... The same way a 1950s V12 is suboptimal versus a modern straight-6 in terms of both power and gas mileage (ie, efficiency).
 
The moment the 1979-80 season started, teams were playing in a woefully suboptimal way. We're only now reaching towards optimal play. Perhaps the best representation of this optimization are LeBron, KD, and Anthony Davis, for whom no aspect of the game is out of reach.

Suboptimal use?  Really?
 
First, the only college conference using the 3 point line in 1980 was the Southern conference.  The three point line did not come into widespread use until after 1984 when FIBA adopted it, and 1985, when its use became universal at the college level.  So the NBA's "farm system" wasn't producing three point specialists the way it does today, and most of the early specialists were guards.
 
So, are you saying that, instead of using Kareem in the post, Riley should have built the "showtime" Laker offense around Byron Scott and Michael Cooper? After all, those suboptimal skyhooks that Kareem was taking were were worth only two points.  Or should Riley have encouraged Kareem to extend his range out to the three point line?
 
Good coaches optimize the skills of the players they have instead of shoehorning the players into some statistical construct.

 

[ALiveH]

Riley should have had kareem develop a 3-point hook shot.  would've revolutionized the game.

 

[Blacken]

Or should Riley have encouraged Kareem to extend his range out to the three point line?

Maybe you should ask Anthony Davis what happens when you do that. (Not that he's there yet, but reports from practice indicate that he's going that way, and I can't fucking waaaaait to see it.)

 

[zenter]

Suboptimal use?  Really?

 
Yup.
 
The 3-point line changed the relative value of the 18 footer versus a 23 footer. The teams in the 70s were being built where 18 footer > 23 footer. That was no longer true as of the 79-80 season and the teams were suboptimal in their usage of player skills. This is to be expected, but that doesn't make it less true.
 

Good coaches optimize the skills of the players they have instead of shoehorning the players into some statistical construct.

 
You're treating this like a binary.
 
Since Byron Scott and Michael Cooper (and James Worthy) were all capable 3-point shooters, optimal usage is using the 3 pointer to get more PPP. Most of the time, people taking 18-20-footers is wasteful.
 
Same goes for Celtics and Bird, Wedman, and Ainge.
 
This doesn't mean 18 footers are useless. We still have KG/Duncan/Dirk taking elbow and baseline shots, but the value of these big men is that they don't merely take these midrange shots, but also kick out to Johnson/Ginobli/Monta for a higher-value three.

 

[Dan to Theo to Ben]

James Worthy? Worthy was a cereer 24% 3PT shooter, never hotting more than 30.6% in a season and most of his attempts were at the end of his career. he only had 5 career makes through the end of the 88-89 season.
 
james Worthy was one of the greatest all around players in history, but he was by no means a capable 3pt shooter.

 

[luckiestman]

Riley should have had kareem develop a 3-point hook shot.  would've revolutionized the game.

Woody harrelson made that shot

 

[Brickowski]

An offense designed to produce as many threes as possible works only when you have players who can make a decent percentage of them.  Today's players have grown up with the three pointer, starting in high school.  In the 1980s there weren't enough good three point shooters coming into the league for the vast majority of teams to base  offenses on them.

 

[zenter]

James Worthy? Worthy was a cereer 24% 3PT shooter, never hotting more than 30.6% in a season and most of his attempts were at the end of his career. he only had 5 career makes through the end of the 88-89 season.
 
james Worthy was one of the greatest all around players in history, but he was by no means a capable 3pt shooter.

 
You're right. I misremembered. Sort of related... isn't 30% around the PPP value break-even point between 2s and 3s? 
 

An offense designed to produce as many threes as possible works only when you have players who can make a decent percentage of them.  Today's players have grown up with the three pointer, starting in high school.  In the 1980s there weren't enough good three point shooters coming into the league for the vast majority of teams to base  offenses on them.

 
I don't get what you're trying to negate. All I'm saying is that there were inefficiencies in allocation of existing resources in the 80s, and we shouldn't be looking at it (or any prior era) as the pinnacle of optimal efficient basketball play.

 

[crystalline]

It's not (except to increase the use of high-efficiency-per-pace strategies even further). Next question.

I understand everything you're saying except for the connection to pace. Why should pace matter? If team A gets 90 possessions per game, on average the other team gets 90 too. If team A starts playing faster and gets 100 possessions, their opponent gets more too. Is there a connection to rebounding efficiency or defensive efficiency as pace goes up?

 

[HomeRunBaker]

 
You're right. I misremembered. Sort of related... isn't 30% around the PPP value break-even point between 2s and 3s? 
 
 

You also must factor in the ancillary benefits of FTA gained from putting the ball on the floor or attempts in the paint/at the rim as well as the benefit generated by getting into the penalty earlier in the quarter.

Edit: Also the benefit of spreading the floor with 3-point shooters to create spacing for others. It isn't black and white.

 

[Dan to Theo to Ben]

 
You're right. I misremembered. Sort of related... isn't 30% around the PPP value break-even point between 2s and 3s? 
 
 
 

for a 45% 2PT shooter, yes. Worthy was .532. He'd need to rise to about 35.5% to make it worthwhile. 24% is way below that. It would be incredibly stupid to have James Worthy shoot 3's if you wanted to win the game. (And that's ignoring opportunity cost of his teammates) Riley was a lot of things, stupid wasn't one of them.
 
And yes, HRB is completely right, that also ignores FT's. So breakeven for Worthy was probably around 40-42% all things considered, and Ray allen and Reggie were 40% and 39.5%. 

 

[Cellar-Door]

for a 45% 2PT shooter, yes. Worthy was .532. He'd need to rise to about 35.5% to make it worthwhile. 24% is way below that. It would be incredibly stupid to have James Worthy shoot 3's if you wanted to win the game. (And that's ignoring opportunity cost of his teammates) Riley was a lot of things, stupid wasn't one of them.
 
And yes, HRB is completely right, that also ignores FT's. So breakeven for Worthy was probably around 40-42% all things considered, and Ray allen and Reggie were 40% and 39.5%. 

Way too high on that projection. Worthy averaged 76.9% on 3.4 FTA per game, converting those possessions to FGA would increase his 2pt% to, 55.8% so the 3pt break even would be 37.2%.
Of course Worthy is a poor example since he took nearly half his career 3s in his last two years the latter of which his 29% on 3s brought more PPP than his 42% on 2s.
It also assumes all FTA come from attempted 2pt shots.

 

[ivanvamp]

Simple math:
 
2pt% = 3pt%
55% = 36% (on 120 shots) = 132 points
50% = 33% (on 6 shots) = 6 points
45% = 30% (on 100 shots) = 90 points
40% = 27% (on 15 shots) = 12 points
 
The closer to the rim you are, the more likely it is you get fouled.  Not only because shots are challenged more aggressively, but there usually are just more bodies around to run into.  I don't have the data on that; it's just intuitive on my part (and I guess I could be wrong).  I bet there are far fewer fouls committed on three point shooters than there are shots within 15 feet, as a percentage.  So that has to be factored in as well.
 
(Personally, I think the three point shot is undermining youth basketball (not that that's really relevant in an NBA thread).  Kids will be able, with their normal stroke, to shoot a 17-footer, but they'll see that line and they'll step back and heave a three-pointer, which is shot against their normal shooting mechanics.  But hey, it's worth an extra point!)

 

[ALiveH]

also, consider missed 3s are more likely to result in offensive rebounds (I think becaues of they bounce long).  or fast-break points going the other way.

 

[Brickowski]

Threes generate more rebounds (offensive and defensive) because the likelihood of a miss is greater.

 

[Cellar-Door]

Threes generate more rebounds (offensive and defensive) because the likelihood of a miss is greater.

I think he meant a greater percentage of missed 3s are rebounded by the offense than missed 2s.
It is close:
http://courtvisionanalytics.com/where-do-rebounds-go/
threes are rebounded by the offense more than midrange shots, but less than missed layups.

 

[slamminsammya]

I don't think the book is closed yet on whether the MOAR 3z/MIDRANGE DIE! revolution has it all figured out. The Trailblazers have been a consistently very good offensive team. Granted, they are stacked with long distance shooters. But their offense runs through a big man in Aldridge who shoots more long two's than maybe anyone else in the game today.

 

[Cellar-Door]

I don't think the book is closed yet on whether the MOAR 3z/MIDRANGE DIE! revolution has it all figured out. The Trailblazers have been a consistently very good offensive team. Granted, they are stacked with long distance shooters. But their offense runs through a big man in Aldridge who shoots more long two's than maybe anyone else in the game today.

They still are way above league average in what percentage of their shots are 3s. (about 12% above last year, this year it is 21% above)
The real thing with Aldridge is that he is a freak, he's unusually effective on the left side. Also he's mostly an outlier.
 
Though the whole "Midrange die" thing is overblown. The argument is that players should take 3s or get to the paint, unless they are in a situation to hit long 2s at a very high rate (unguarded usually), Aldridge is arguably the best PF in basketball and shoots way way above average from midrange on the right, which makes those good shots. For most players that isn't a good shot because the difference between their midrange percentage and their 3pt% isn't enough to overcome the point differential.

 

[Blacken]

The Blazers' offense "runs through" Damian Lillard. Aldridge is a good player, but he is not the straw that stirs the drink. When they have to go to him as a consistent option, things don't usually go very well for them.

The only big man with a thing for long twos who could be said to do that is Dirk, and he shot three hundred and thirty threes last year. He's gotten more efficient as he's gotten away from stupid shit. Aldridge will too, he's not dumb; he's already shot 11 threes this year in eight games, compared to 15 in 69 last year.

 

[Brickowski]

It seems to me that it's not the long jumpers you want to be shooting in the midrange.  It's the high percentage floaters and 10-12 foot pull up jumpers, like the ones Reggie Jackson was taking last night.

 

[ivanvamp]

The NBA three point line is about 23 feet away on average.  The worst shot in the sport is a 22 1/2 foot jumper.  
 
NBA defenses invite opponents to take midrange jumpers.  Obviously they want to defend the rim and keep opponents from very high percentage shots from close in.  And teams are getting so good at shooting the three that they want to defend there as well (with the extra point and all).  So the longer midrange shots are shot at a much lower percentage than shots in the paint, but they're not worth as many points as a 23 footer.  
 
So that's the dead zone in the NBA.
 
And yet, I believe, therein lies a market inefficiency waiting to be exploited.
 
Some players are just really, really good at the midrange shots - 16-21 feet.  And if defenses are geared around stopping the paint and the three, and they give you the midrange shots - really, NBA defenses often just give you that shot - and you can master that shot to the tune of 50% shooting, then you'll be in pretty good shape.
 
Here are some interesting numbers from hoop data (http://hoopdata.com/teamshotlocs.aspx):
 
2012-13, NBA team shooting percentage by distance:
 
At Rim:  16.4-25.5 (64.6%)
3-9 feet:  3.6-9.0 (39.8%)
10-15 feet:  2.6-6.3 (41.7%)
16-23 feet:  7.1-18.5 (38.3%)
Threes:  7.2-20.0 (36.0%; effective FG% of 53.8%)
 
At the rim, you're talking about layups, dunks, tip-ins.  Naturally the percentage will be high.  3-9 feet you're talking about the close-in paint.  That's the area that defenses really challenge.  Very low shooting percentages not because the percentages would be low unguarded, but because those shots are always challenged, usually by seven-foot guys.  And often, the players shooting those shots are big men with very little touch.
 
10-15 is the spot where teams shoot the least.  Well-defended, a pretty low shooting percentage.  Teams just don't run much stuff designed to get that shot.  
 
16-23 is the dead zone.  As you can see, teams shoot a lot from that area.  But not so much by design; rather, because that's what NBA defenses want you to take.  And for good reason - 38.3%.  Often these are big men who have just set screens.  Not the shooting guards who will drift a little further back and take threes.
 
Of course, the three point field goal percentage is lower, but the *effective* field goal percentage (taking the extra point into consideration) is 53.8%.  Huge.  Why shoot from 20 feet at 38.3% when you can shoot three feet back at an effective rate of 53.8%?  
 
I think it's this midrange stuff that can be exploited.  Somehow.  Teams will figure out how.

 

[HomeRunBaker]

Rick Pitino was one of the early innovators in designing his offense to take spot up three's off penetration and kick out or a path directly to the basket when he was at Providence in the late 80's. He was so ahead of his time he took a team without as much as a single NBA prospect and got them to the Final Four.

 

[ALiveH]

well, in our most recent big-3 era, we had KG, Pierce and to a lesser extent guys like Bass taking tons of long 2s cause they were abnormally great at hitting that shot.  And, teams knew that and adjusted, but you often still saw KG & Pierce hit plenty of contested long 2s.  Still, that ended up being enough to win a championship.  Also, guys like Michael Jordan (after his 1st retirement) and Dirk were good enough at the long 2 to win championships, even though teams tried to adjust and contest the long 2.  Also, what you often see is that when defenses have to respect multiple players who can hit the long 2, it opens up lots of scoring opportunities at the rim and at the 3.  So, it can be exploited if you have the right personnel.  I don't think it's that awesome market inefficiency because with all the scouting reports & video preparation defenses tend to try to adjust to the small number of players that are close to automatic (unguarded) from that range.

 

[Devizier]

well, in our most recent big-3 era, we had KG, Pierce and to a lesser extent guys like Bass taking tons of long 2s cause they were abnormally great at hitting that shot.  And, teams knew that and adjusted, but you often still saw KG & Pierce hit plenty of contested long 2s.  Still, that ended up being enough to win a championship.  

 
Merits mentioning that the recent championship Celtics were arguably the best defensive team of the post-handcheck era, and possibly one of the best ever.
 
That said, the long two argument boils down to the truism that bad shots = bad offense. What constitutes a bad shot depends on the player and the context.
 
Now what does this have to do with Zeller? Thornton, I can see...