<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>John Hollinger and Dave Berri have two different statistical methods for measuring player efficiency … and they’re not too crazy about each other either. So no surprise that when they crunched their numbers, they came up with different conclusions on who got the better deal in the Kidd trade. Hollinger likes it for the Nets. Berri likes it for the Mavs. Both believe Dallas made a big mistake in dealing DeSagana Diop. -netsdaily.com</div> John Hollinger - ESPN Insider Dave Berri - Wages of Wins Journal
I don't like the idea of overall player metrics, but I agree with that basic conclusion that Diop is BOSS. Berri especially is full of horse crap. Just because you're prolific and have a "system" doesn't mean that it's any good. Bah!
when I first saw the trade, I felt like Diop was just an expiring, but now that I've read more about him, I really have started to like him. With him, Krstic, Williams and Boone, we have a really good young core of bigs. Unfortunately, I don't expect him to re-sign because of a possible lack of playing time on a team not contending, fighting with those guys and Swift. Hopefully he bonds and fits in with the team, he'd be a great asset. and perhaps we could trade one of our bigs for a good young wing in the offseason, or a couple for a better younger big.
Everyone and their mamma's know that Dallas giving up Diop was a HUGE mistake. Oh well, too bad for them! Really, I wonder what Cuban/Johnson were thinking with letting go of Diop. I mean, the Nets practically stole him from the Mavs. And they need him. I almost feel bad.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>And as an added bonus -- yes, the hair gel and high socks are back in The Swamp! It's hard for me to imagine a better deal than that.</div> I've never like Hollinger more
It's funny how people said Diop sucked, and now when they traded him away they're saying it was a bad trade..lol.
I've never looked at the "Wages of Wins" methodology before, but it seems kind of dumb to me. Of all the metrics he uses to compare Kidd and Harris, there are only two that Kidd is better than Harris: rebounds and assists. The rebounds are mostly irrelevant. Nearly 90% of Kidd's rebounds come on the defensive end; in probably 80-90% of those cases, if Kidd didnt get them, a Net teammate would have. He averages only about one offensive rebound a game, which matters more. The difference between Kidd and Harris in the rebounding department is roughly 0.5 offensive rebounds and 5 defensive rebounds a game. Ignoring, for the moment, the effect of pace of play and defensive efficiency (which somewhat determines rebounding opportunities), Kidd will probably add roughly ONE more rebound per game to Dallas' totals, the way I see it--the half of an offensive rebound and the roughly half a defensive rebound that would have turned into an offensive rebound for the opposition. Stated another way, Kidd will simply be taking defensive rebounds away from Josh Howard (that is, if Dampier is devoted to boxing out instead of grabbing them himself, as Collins was). That's worth maybe two points per game, which is completely swallowed up by Harris's five more FT attempts per game. So, we're down to assists, the value of which is dependent on the offensive system used by the team. Kidd is really good, and adds a lot of immeasurable tangibles--but if you are looking solely at hard stats, I can't see how you can conclude that Kidd is better than Harris when you put his contributions into a team context.
the mavs have no beef in the middle outside of....eric dampier.....yucky and an undersized bass, before this trade, dallas was hardly playing diop, bass was taking all his minutes but they needed him, you cannot reoly on dampier for anything
