Analyzing Mitch Kupchak's GM skills: from 2001 to now

In the NBA, the best way to analyze how a general manager has done is to see how the players have performed under his watch, relative to their contracts. I've created a formula that boils down to three attributes: obviously, the contract value every year for a particular player is important, as after the rookie scale contract, this is the true test for whether the GM is competent in sensing a player's true worth. This is therefore an integral part of the equation. The second part is based on the age of the player, which is less consequential, but still it as a player ages, obviously their production is expected to wane. The most important part is based on the win shares/48 minutes of that player in that season. Win shares is based off the player's PER, so it is as flawed as PER is (which is a more of an offense-capturing stat and less of a defense one), but still, it captures the player's productivity in a given season, accounting for how many minutes they have played that season (so it can account for player injuries) and it also captures how well that player's team has done that season (so obviously, players on losing teams would have smaller win shares, even if their PER is higher). For example, players like Bruce Bowen who play a ton of minutes on winning teams, but have low PERs, can have their impact more accurately reflected through win shares/48. So there's a heavy weighting factor given to win shares (in fact, seven orders more!) as compared to contract value and age, so players that are producing are therefore worth more and likelier to outplay their contract.

So I’ve created a score that attempts to capture how well the investment was for each player for a given year. The formula is (((Win Shares per 48*10^3)^5)/(Contract Value*Age))/(10^7), which is weighted more towards win shares, or player impact, but still puts a decent weight on the contract value and age. Obviously, the higher the score, the better value that player presents. 

Here’s the general rubric for a player living up to their contract, based on their play/age:

• <10: Subpar value for the contract (toxic if the player is making >=$3mil a year)
•  10-15: OK value for the contract 
•  15-20: Decent value for the contract
•  20-30: Pretty good value for the contract 
•  30-40: Good value for the contract
•  40-50: Very good value for the contract 
• >50: Excellent value for the contract

There is a subset ranking for this for those in their rookie scale contracts (generally between ages ~20-~24), but this is less grounded in fact:

• <10: Won’t amount to much
• 10-100: Likely lower level role player
• 100-300: Role player
• 300-600: Starter
• 600-900: High Level Starter
• >900: All Star

 The graphs below are going to be based on contract outplaying value, which is the number generated by the equation above for a particular player at a particular year, relative to their ages. For we're isolating production relative to age, so we can get a glimpse of how players perform when they get paid, when they're in their rookie scale contracts, etc. As you will see below, rookie scale players are paid very little but the ones who are NBA-viable tend to have huge spikes in production relative to their contract. Once players get paid, it's harder to produce value relative to the contract, but the ones who have longer careers will extract at least decent to very good value out of their contract consistently.

For a GM like Mitch, who has been at this job since 2001, or for 11 years and counting, it's critical to separate his moves into epochs, because you'll see stark differences between them. Epoch 1 runs from 2001-2004, Epoch 2 from 2005-2008, Epoch 3 from 2009-2012, and I also have a graph that illustrates the current players: 2012 and beyond. I'll also have graphs that show how players that Mitch have allowed to leave have done in each of the epochs. And finally, there's one that's more indirect: players that were draft picks of the Lakers that were traded before they even set foot with the Lakers. Yeah, it's more indirect, but it's interesting to analyze how those players have fared over the years.

Without further ado, let's start with Epoch 1:

 First, some context: the Lakers were in the thick of things from 2001 to 2005, going deep into the playoffs and always trying to contend for a championship. As a result, player development and the use of rookies weren't as important, as you can see with so few marks for players 28 and below. But even then, the Lakers' "younger players" at the time were pretty horrible--Samaki Walker and Mark Madsen went through one year spikes that dropped to "playing below contract" levels, so Mitch allowed them both to walk. Kareem Rush and Jelani McCoy were both bust that never ever showed value to the Lakers.  Because the Lakers were investing in older players ages 30 and above, they didn't see any of the huge spikes that were characteristic of the younger players. There was value--Shaq at the time was paid enormously and produced great value regardless, but a precipitous value drop made Mitch pull the trigger on a trade. Among older players, Karl Malone, at age 40 (see the far right of the graph), produced extreme value for the Lakers, particularly amazing for his age. Robert Horry had one good year, and Bryon Russell and Gary Payton also proved useful relative to their contracts. Among bad spots, Rick Fox was quite toxic with his $4.9million contract, producing three bad years of below contract value. The Lakers also got bad one-year blips out of Isaiah Rider, Lindsey Hunter, Mitch Richmond, Greg Foster, Tracy Murray, and to a lesser extent, Horace Grant. Needless to say, much of the action with epoch 1 circulated around the veterans.

Now let's take a look at those players that Mitch allowed to leave in Epoch 1. As you can see, the graph sees more "productive" spikes upwards with quite a few players. Shaq had two more productive-relative-to-contract years after leaving the Lakers, and while he went through toxic contract doldrums between ages 34-37, at age 38 he saw a huge spike with the Celtics where he was producing relative to the veteran's minimum he was making. Another player to look at is Robert Horry: his value off the charts high for four years after leaving the Lakers, with the Spurs, because he was producing, and for a winning team. Mark Madsen had one good year with the Timberwolves before settling into being four years of being a toxic contract. Ime Udoka had two productive years with the Blazers and the Spurs before losing all value and retiring. Even young Jamal Sampson saw two productive seasons after leaving the Lakers, although he didn't play much. By and large, perhaps only letting Horry and Sampson go was a horrible decision, as many of the others became toxic contracts.As for good decisions on who to let go, Lindsey Hunter, Jannero Pargo, Kareem Rush, and Tyronn Lue produced very forgettable value throughout the duration of their careers.

Overall, Epoch 1 was OK: the Lakers were in win-now mode, so the Lakers really didn't have too many young players. But in doing so we couldn't see if Mitch was a proper evaluator of young talent, and based on Samaki, Mark and Kareem, his evaluation methods looked pretty bleak. There were a few hits with the older players, but also quite a few misses, so it was overall a mixed bag. Mitch didn't get burned too badly by players who left the Lakers, but Robert Horry, Ime Udoka and Shaq were a few notable ones. Overall, Epoch 1 was a mixed bag on both fronts. Mitch just wasn't that aggressive at making moves at the time.

The Lakers were less relevant after the Malone-Payton fiasco of 2004 and started to rebuild from scratch after trading Shaq: hence, Mitch started to scout for younger talent. The Lakers attained a lot of players in the ages 23-26 inset at this period. The Lakers got extreme value out of Ronny Turiaf for three years of his rookie contract, which is why it's important to draft players: that's where most of the extreme value can be attained. Brian Cook also produced three impressive years in his rookie contract, and Slava Medvedenko was very up-and-down during this period, but had several value years. Coby Karl was a pleasant surprise, and Jumaine Jones was decent as well in their lone year here. The Lakers coaxed a single good year out of basket-cases Smush Parker and Devean George, but both regressed into subpar production and George in particular was a toxic contract for four years with the Lakers during this period. It's hard to call Kwame a toxic contract because he was still quite young at the time, but in retrospect he was toxic, because he underperformed relative to the contract for three years with the Lakers as well. During this period got horrid production out of their older players, with Chucky Atkins, Shammond Williams and Brian Grant all vastly underperforming.

In getting younger players, and  in letting them go, it's easier to get burned since they're still likely to produce upon leaving the team. The Lakers saw some of that with Von Wafer, who had two value years at ages 23 and 25, and Ronny Turiaf, who went through some sort of mini renaissance of great bang for the buck at ages 28 and 30. Mo Evans went through a Turiaf-ian renaissance between ages 29-31 as well. Caron Butler was extremely overrated--he was fed a fat contract after leaving the Lakers and while he had two value seasons, ever since age 29 (he's now age 32) he's been perceived as a toxic contract because he's just vastly underperforming. Chucky Atkins and Kwame Brown both had one year spikes, but by and large they've remained at an underperforming state. Mitch was right to let Javaris Crittenton, Brian Cook, Devean George and Smush Parker go--they've remained consistently underperforming ever since they left the Lakers. But by and large, the only real "burns" were with Ronny Turiaf and Mo Evans to a slight extent, but everyone else--including the overrated Butler--they were absolutely right to let go. Mitch didn't get burned too much with these moves.

Overall, Epoch 2 was an improvement for Mitch in scouting talent--the Lakers were able to maximize Cook and arguably Turiaf as draft picks and had other decent finds, but Mitch did an about-face and only found old veterans who underperformed during this period, and also had two toxic contracts--Devean George and Kwame Brown, as opposed to only one (Rick Fox) at epoch 1. Mitch didn't get burned as much either in Epoch 2 with only Turiaf and Mo Evans as players who shouldn't have left so soon, but in Epoch 1 we could have said that about Shaq, Horry and Udoka. Overall, epoch 2 was a vast improvement, particularly in terms of finding younger talent.

From 2009-2012, the Lakers were back in contending mode, but this time, unlike the first slew of championship runs, they did it in a completely different fashion. Mitch didn't bother with the veterans this time--look at the chart above--he did it with a bunch of 20-30 year old types, a mixture of very young players and "young" veterans. And this is the ideal way to build a championship team so you can extend its shelf life. And Epoch 3 is really where Mitch hit a home run with virtually all of his moves--notice all those rookie scale contract type spikes. His drafting was very good during this period and he supplied the Lakers with a lot of younger players who were able to make contributions. Draftee Sasha Vujacic had four good value years with the Lakers, and Jordan Farmar had a great one year blip (unfortunately it was only one year, so he was let go after his rookie contract). Andrew Bynum proved that he was an All star and then some with four great value years between ages 20-24 with the Lakers. Mitch also brought great ammo value via trade, with Trevor Ariza producing two great value years, Shannon Brown producing a great one-year spike, and Ramon Sessions also providing good one-year value. The trade was a feature that Mitch hadn't really succeeded with prior to this, but these three trades cemented the idea that he was very good at extracting value out of young, previously underappreciated players. On top of good drafting, both in Epoch 2 and 3, that made him a formidable GM.

With the older players, Lamar Odom, after getting grossly overpaid at ages 25-27 so he wasn't really outproducing his contract, got a pay cut to the point where he was able to have major bang for the buck at ages 30-31. DJ Mbenga had several value seasons with the Lakers. But if we're talking about value, the best find was...wait for it...Matt Barnes. It's extremely rare to get great value off free agency, much less from a 30-year old, but the Lakers gave Barnes the near minimum and for two years he produced extreme bang for the buck. That was an excellent move.

Certainly there were problems--Luke Walton utilized one great year to get paid by the Lakers, and settled into a toxic contract for SIX! years--from ages 24 to 30 as the Lakers were unable to find takers. Vladimir Radmanovic was toxic but the Lakers were able to move in the third year of his contract. Derek Fisher lost value in his last two years of his first and second stint with the Lakers, so the Lakers let him go both times. Chris Mihm was toxic for three years and had only one decent season. Josh Powell and Adam Morrison were major busts.

But what's even more amazing, besides those Mitch moves? Look at the chart above. In Epoch 3, the vast majority of Lakers let go have failed to produce relative to their contracts. More power to Mitch--it shows that he has let the right personnel leave. The only major exception is Matt Barnes, who was a major mistake to let go and is producing even greater bang for the veteran minimum with the Clippers. Everyone else has suffered--Josh McRoberts is producing some value with the Magic right now, and Radmanovic, after three more seasons of being a toxic contract, is finally doing something of value to the Bulls, but other than that, everyone else has been suffering. On the younger side, Trevor Ariza now exists solely as a toxic contract from ages 24-27, and Shannon Brown and Ramon Sessions are putting up empty stat lines and underproducing relative to their contracts. On the older side, Luke Walton is at the verge of retirement, and Derek Fisher and Lamar Odom (the "mole" of the Dallas Mavericks) have been flat out underperforming-awful.

All in all, Epoch 3 cemented Mitch as a top GM. Sure, he had a few toxic contracts, such as Walton, Mihm and Radmanovic, and including a weird obsession with Derek Fisher, but great drafting, great trading, and great young player bang-for-the-buck type production was the unheralded factor in helping the Lakers win their several championships over this period. Older bang for the bucks from Matt Barnes and Lamar Odom were also essential. And to further cement this, Mitch wasn't really burned at all, except with Matt Barnes--most of the young AND old players he let go during this period are underproducing relative to their contracts. This is the mark of a good GM--both trading, drafting well, and knowing which players to let go.

Another angle we can look at Mitch's GM skills is to see which Laker draft picks he traded away, whether before the draft (ie Rajon Rondo, Greivis Vasquez, etc) or at the time of the draft (Toney Douglas) or even as a stash (Marc Gasol). Mitch severely got burned by two of those at Epoch 2--Marc Gasol and Rajon Rondo. Rondo is incredibly indirect, I know, but once upon a time, the pick he was drafted with belonged to the Lakers (the 21st overall pick). Needless to say, Rondo produced huge rookie year spikes with the Celtics that cemented the fact that he was a star, and he got paid accordingly--he hasn't been producing excellent value at ages 24-26, but decent enough value. Marc Gasol, another Epoch 2 product, has been a consistently excellent bang for the buck type, really producing extreme value ever since he came to the league. Mitch really got burned by those two. Epoch 3 products Greivis Vasquez and Toney Douglas are now putting up empty stat lines and underperforming relative to their contracts, although Douglas had two good prior years in his rookie contract. JaJuan Johnson and Donte Greene are now out of the league and had struggled to produce value,and Chris Jefferies was an Epoch 1 irrelevant player who faded very early. Overall, Mitch really got burned at Epoch 2 with Rondo and Gasol, but the other draft picks that left were OK to leave.

Finally, the last chart shows the current production trajectories of the 2012-2013 Lakers. And this is where the Lakers appear somewhat disappointing again: their roster is old, and very 30-33 years old heavy. Mitch has made some great value plays with "youngish" players--Jodie Meeks (free agency) and Jordan Hill (trade again, further cementing Mitch's legend as a "thief") have punched good value above their contract. In addition, Kobe has been raking in the cash and has produced OK values in the early 30s, and has bounced back from a bad season last year to produce excellent value so far in this season. But the Lakers are currently struggling with some of their star players failing to punch above their contract. It's not OK for Dwight Howard to merely produce OK value for his contract if this team is to go far, but that's where he currently stands right now.  As of this moment, even Chris Duhon punches above his contract more than Dwight does. And Pau Gasol, who once was able to produce excellent value (particularly at ages 27-29) for the Lakers, has dropped like a rock heading into ages 31-32 and now he's severely underperforming his contract and therefore the subject of endless trade rumors. In addition, young players Darius Morris and Devin Ebanks have been disappointments, so the Lakers aren't able to get major bang for the buck that are typical of talented young rookies. While every team has a bad contract, Mitch has been saddled with Steve Blake's toxic contract for two years running.

So the Lakers are headed into an Epoch 1 direction--the very young are very bad, and there's a huge reliance on the old. The difference is the stars are underperforming, and that needs to change if the Lakers are to be relevant. Perhaps Mitch, who excels in trading for youngish players, should trade some of the underperformers (Gasol) for such talent. The Lakers are seriously lacking in draft picks after putting all their poker chips in the win now mode, so it might behoove them to trade for draft picks (which Mitch also excels at).

Overall, Mitch's management ability has been very good, with his shining moment at Epoch 3 (2009-2012). He appears to excel at trading for youngish players (Epoch 3) and drafting decently, particularly at Epochs 2 and Epoch 3. He's had some luck finding veterans, but overall he's very hit and miss at this end. While Steve Blake is the latest in the long line of toxic contracts, the majority of his toxic giveaways happened earlier in his regime, so one presumes that he's learned from a lot of it. However, the Lakers look like they're moving at the wrong direction as of this moment, with an old-heavy team similar to Epoch 1, where Mitch didn't look as good. But here's a chance for Mitch to take what he's learned at Epochs 2 and 3 and see if he can rectify the situation.

*Statistical support provided by Basketball-Reference.

LAKER NEEDS

So in the advent of getting Steve Nash, the Lakers get an excellent three point shooter and arguably the best playmaker in the league, qualities that should stop opposing teams from packing the paint and daring the Lakers to shoot. However, despite his greatness and competitiveness, Nash exacerbates some of the Lakers' problems, namely their youth and an athleticism deficit. Also, the Lakers still need to replenish their bench--so they need proven bench production--and more three point shooting, preferably a specialist on the offensive end, to help space the floor. Also, the Lakers don't gain anything in steals by adding Nash--a team that has near the end in steals last year, they sorely need to address that. Preferably, a youngish, athletic, productive player who can shoot the ball really well from deep and steal the ball is ideal. That sounds awfully like Paul George. Obviously, he's unattainable. The Lakers probably cannot find a player through free agency who can knock down all four holes--but, even if they knock down three or even two simultaneously it would help a lot. With that in mind, here's some reasonable players I'm looking at in free agency:

(Let's get guys out of the price range first: OJ Mayo, Randy Foye, Louis Williams)
(I'm also assuming we won't be resigning Matt Barnes, or getting Shannon Brown back; also, Rudy Fernandez has left for Spain, otherwise he'd be on this list)

SHOULD BE ON THE LAKERS' LIST

1A) Brandon Rush (Age: 27/RFA)
Rush just finished out his rookie contract in Golden State and although he's a RFA, it's questionable whether Golden State would want to keep him with Harrison Barnes, Richard Jefferson and Klay Thompson all being minutes soppers at the swing positions. If the Warriors have to keep Dorell Wright as well (he's subject to trade rumors--and actually further down this list as a Laker option), then the odds are they'd let Rush walk.

On a production basis, Rush should earn more $ than the roughly $3mil he made this year. However, this is a  deep pool for free agent swingmen, so he might be left in the dust. The Lakers would be smart to swoop in--Rush is very underrated. There are people who say that he didn't live up to expectations as a lottery pick--but so what? He's made himself useful as a very good roleplayer. Rush is a career 41% three point shooter and hit 45% of his threes last year, so he's a certifiable zone buster in this league. He also finishes well around the basket in his rare ventures there. Also, while people may be disappointed that he never used his athleticism too much offensively, that sort of athleticism allows him to play very good man-defense at both swing spots, and he plays SGs very well. His team defense grows a little more questionable. He also has an excellent build for a swingman. He doesn't help the Lakers with steals, but he's an excellent weakside shotblocker for his size, and he also doesn't foul the ball, so he appears to be smart on this end. He's also young-ish for the Lakers, and given his niche game can easily sustain his three-D type of production for many more years without fear of dropoff.

At the end of the day, playing for mediocre/poor teams, perhaps he just needs more exposure. I also get the feeling that he has been branded as an underachiever--he put up single digit PERs or near single digits for the past three years, and even though he found an offensive niche this year in a mini-explosion, he's approaching fluke rule status (he's 27; this applies for guys 28 or older). Nonetheless, the Lakers merely need him to be the roleplayer he was last year. For the Lakers, he's a snug fit, he has the former Rush connection (Kareem Rush was a former Laker), and Golden State likely doesn't want him. Try giving him a multiyear deal for the mini-mid-level (roughly $3.1mil) and see if GS bites. The stars seem to be aligning for him to be a possible Laker, now it's up to the Lakers to take the initiative.

1B) Jodie Meeks (Age: 24/UFA)
As a productive 2nd round pick who has started 114 of his last 140 NBA games, Meeks has been woefully underpaid--he's made less than a million the past three years. It's hard to say where Philly stands on him, but they just signed Nick Young but let Lou Williams go, and they seem to be in need for shooting, so it might be in their best interests to keep him. However, Philly also has Andre Iguodala (who they might trade), Evan Turner, and possibly Jrue Holiday who can play the position, and all those guys are minutes soppers. Philly's excess of guys with swing size (they also have Moe Harkless and Thaddeus Young) might cause them to relinquish Meeks. Also, as a UFA, if the Lakers really register their interest for him (and they should, as explained below), then there's a chance he could bolt for a better shot at a championship and a defined role which the Lakers sorely need. They might have to pay him the mini mid-level though, or something at least in the $2mil range. As mentioned, it's a deep swingmen draft class, and Meeks is a bit under the radar, so there's a chance we could snag him on the cheap.

Meeks' career three point percentages aren't as good as Rush's (he's a career 37% three point shooter), and in addition, he's undersized as a SG and can't play SF (whereas Rush can), but I'd argue Meeks is tougher offensively. He's more willing to fire spot-up shots from deep than Rush is, and actually does an excellent job of drawing fouls for such a high volume jumpshooter. I also wonder if he's really a better shooter than Rush is overall--Rush has had seasons shooting below 70% from the line, and Meeks' last two seasons saw 89.4% and 90.6% from the line, and he actually gets there. So there's that. His offense is really underrated. Meeks is essentially mistake free on offense, routinely having one of the lowest turnover rates for his possession. He knows how to score, and score efficiently.

And here's the other thing: Meeks' defense looks vastly underrated from my perspective. He plays under Doug Collins' hard-nosed defensive system and he was excellent at playing man-to-man defense against SGs, and quite decent at team defense as well. Past seasons showed him to be equally as tough on man-defense. Sure, he doesn't make any defensive plays at all, but he's able to play contain defense very well without fouling, possibly even better than Brandon Rush does.

Ultimately, Meeks can easily serve a role for the Lakers as a very willing three point shooter/very good defensive player. He comes with side benefits of being able to draw fouls as well, and while he isn't known as an athlete, he's very young (24). That's why I placed him as 1(b), sure he isn't as tall as Rush, but he's younger, a better defensive player and brings a few more elements to his game. He's very unheralded, so we might get him cheap as well. Good fit for this team.

2) Carlos Delfino (Age: 29/UFA)

I'm actually surprised no one has actually thought of this guy as an option, but he's also another excellent fit here. He hasn't made a ton of $ over the course of his career and is coming off a contract where he made $3.5mil the past three years. He's also seen a fair share of injuries and hasn't been super productive over the past couple of years, so it's questionable whether he can get more $. I'd even wonder if we can get him for $2mil, rather than the full mini-mid-level, based on his career arc. With Milwaukee having Mike Dunleavy, Tobias Harris, and Luc Richard Mbah a Moute under contract, it might be in their best interests to let him go as well, so he likely could be had.

On a career basis, Delfino shoots 36.2% from three, which is slightly above average but nothing extraordinary, but he does make over a three a game. Nowadays, he takes about half of his shots from distance, so he will definitely know his role if he joins the Lakers. He's had horrible shot efficiency numbers the past several years, though, so that has to give the Lakers pause. Also, he's had a defensive reputation in the past and can guard both swings, but this year he had awful team defensive numbers and couldn't guard small forwards (his primary position) to save his life--this is a bit surprising, because he plays for Scott Skiles, who had his team play excellent defense this season, so he must have stood out like a sore thumb (possibly due to lingering injuries). In past years he was decent against small forwards, so this could be a fluke.

The true value in his game is possibly in his versatility: at 6'6", 230 lbs, he passes the ball very well and unlike the first two guys in this list, gets steals, and does that without fouling. He's also a true veteran--he's won in the Olympics with the Argentinian national team, and while his NBA career hasn't been super spectacular, maybe he just needs the right fit instead of playing with very mediocre teams like Milwaukee. He certainly has the threes-steals-passing game to be a very versatile player for a contending team, and at age 29 should have some more juice to his game.

Delfino by far has more dimensions than Rush or Meeks does, and even though he's not as good a shooter, he brings more of a established veteran presence and could fill in the blanks better. He'll help the Lakers with steals as well, and should improve their threes. His defense might be questionable and his shot selection awful, but I'm thinking there's a definite net gain with him, and he might be had relatively easily.

3) Courtney Lee (Age: 26/UFA)

Lee's had a bit of an adventurous career, just finishing up his rookie contract where he made $2.2mil last year; the adventure is that he's been traded two times within that contract. Having played 30 minutes per game twice just four years into his career, he probably thinks he's due for a bigger contract, but the reality is, he's probably peaked--he's at the age where players generally peak, and his past three PERs were in the 12 range. That might nullify a part of his value, but he has many suitors so he could potentially drive the asking price out of the Lakers' range. Still, I'm putting him in this list because anything above the mini mid-level IMO is overpaying him.

Lee has that 3's/D rep that could make him useful for a Laker--he largely only defends shooting guards, and is a decent to pretty good man-to-man defender, even though his team defense is nondescript and doesn't make too many defensive plays, even if he doesn't pick up fouls. Still, that sort of contain defense is useful. As a shooter he's a career 38.6% three point shooter and has shot over 40% from three in 3 of his 4 seasons--however, he's not terribly efficient in scoring because he doesn't take enough threes and is largely a jumpshooter. He fashions himself more of a scorer than as a shooter, and that might need to change after he leaves the mediocre teams he's played for. He's had NBA finals experience playing heavy minutes as a rookie for Orlando, so that might be points in his favor as well (incidentally, he missed a critical layup in the finals against the Lakers).

I'm still not super sold on him--he's above Hinrich due to youth, and the Lakers definitely need that. However, he's unable to guard small forwards at 6'5" 200 lbs, his overall defense isn't all that, and he's more scorer than shooter, and doesn't have any side qualities to offset that. I'd rather the Lakers didn't pick him up because of that.


4) Grant Hill (Age: 39/UFA)

Hill's a popular choice to join the Lakers for the veteran minimum ever since Steve Nash opted to join the Lakers, and at age 39, he's surprisingly one of more durable players in the league, thanks to Phoenix's legendary training staff: he played around 30 minutes a game for the past five seasons, and before this season's lockout, only missed three games the three seasons prior. Having made over $140mil in the league and coming off getting paid $6.5mil, he probably wants that ring, and with Nash here makes it quite conceivable he'll take the vet minimum.

Hill like Nash largely played for Phoenix teams that didn't emphasize defense, but still Hill stood out at that end through his build (6'8" 225 lbs), smarts and general intangibles. His man-defense against SFs was good, and his team defense is also decent. He's actually quite underrated defensively, and another aspect I forgot to mention is how the Lakers don't really draw charges--Hill will sacrifice his body on this end, and he's also a decent shotblocker. Hill doesn't suffer from the same lack of footspeed Metta World Peace has, and is also zany-antics free, so that helps.

Besides the advanced age and whether or not he can hold up with the Lakers' training staff (which is still good, but Phoenix's is legendary), there's also the questions about Hill's lack of range. He's a super infrequent three point shooter, an area the Lakers need, but last season also showed him to be much much more of a mid-range shooter than in seasons past. He's quite good at that, but that makes him woefully inefficient, and the Lakers need floor spacers.

I like the value of Hill's intangibles and overall defense, though, but if they sign him they need to address floor spacing through another player, and cut through a lot of the toxic contract types in the roster to make space. His lack of floor spacing is why I even put him below Courtney Lee in this list.


5) Kirk Hinrich (Age: 31/UFA)

Hinrich's stole so much money over the course of his career, having $58mil in his wallet already, and earning $8.1mil last year alone. His past two years have procured single-digit PERs, so clearly he was a toxic contract. With Atlanta having Jeff Teague and John Jenkins, and Hinrich not being a ball-dominant or pure PG, it's likely they go in another direction. With the dissonance between his production and his money earned, it's very likely he'll accept the veteran minimum now.

Hinrich's main asset in the past was his defensive rep, and I still think he's decent, but slipping. At 6'4" 190 lbs he struggled to guard PGs last year and had nondescript team defensive markers, but this year he recovered decently. Offensively Hinrich pretty much stays out of the limelight and is essentially a jumpshooter, which he's actually pretty good at  (career 37.8% three point shooter). His efficiency is diminished because he takes too many mid-range shots and he's not good enough a jumpshooter to offset the  easy points one accrues from slashing and drawing fouls, though.

At the end of the day he's a decent option for the veteran minimum--he's a good enough shooter and a good enough defender at this stage in his career, but not excellent at both, and he's a safe bet to draw the veteran minimum anyway. He isn't too different from Steve Blake, though, trading perhaps a slightly worse shot, worse passing with better defense, so I'm not sure how much the Lakers could gain from him.

6) Cartier Martin (Age: 27/UFA)

Who? Well, that's an appropriate question. But considering that he has no name recognition, has barely played half a season most of the time, and is bouncing around from one bad team to another, it's easy to say that we can get him for the minimum. At 6'7" 220 lbs, he has some 3's/D attributes, and if we really want to look for a sleeper, he could possibly be it.

Martin's clearly trying to fashion himself as a three point shooter--over half of his attempts have come from distance over his last 70 games. I have hope for him too--he's a career 37.1% shooter from there.

On defense he's willing to risk up his body to draw charges, and he actually stood out as a positive defender for Washington the past 70 games (particularly against SFs), with good team defense. Yes, Washington was horrendous at defense overall, but Martin at least stood out in a positive way. There might be something here.

He's relatively young and as a 3's/D type could be a sleeper. Might just need a good team, instead of horrible teams to teach him the wrong techniques.

THE EHHH...TOO FLAWED LIST:

7) Marco Belinelli (Age: 26/UFA)
--He's young for this free agent list and is a career 39.3% three point shooter. He just finished his rookie contract and might command some $, especially since he's started 124 out of his last 146 games which might give himself some inflated worth. But, for a jumpshooter, he needs to shave off more long twos for threes. He's played for Monty Williams' hard working defensive New Orleans teams, and he does appear to be a decent defender man-to-man (even against PGs), but his team defense is absolutely atrocious. He doesn't play with much emotion and with the lack of athleticism would not help to shield Nash for us. That's why he's down here, not to mention that he's probably more scorer than shooter (a problem that Sasha Vujacic had with us).

8) Leandro Barbosa (Age: 29/UFA)
--Barbosa's more scorer than shooter, but it's hard to ignore he's a career 39.1% three point shooter, although that comes with huge question marks--much of that was due to the front half of his career. However, that front half was helped by guess who?--yep. Steve Nash. With Nash back in the fold, Barbosa could hopefully regain his shooting touch (awkward motion included) by rejoining his former teammate. I'm still not sold on whether he'd completely identify with a spot-up role, as he also seems inclined to slash and his shot selection is pretty awful in general. Despite the very long arms he's never made many defensive plays at all and has played for horrible defensive teams, so he's never been reared properly at that end. His team defense is pretty terrible. He's always had the tools, but has a laissez-faire attitude at this end. He's made a ton of money and was a toxic contract for the past several years, so it's easy to see that he could take the veteran minimum. Still, the Nash reunion is somewhat appealing, and there is some 3's potential and hopefully Mike Brown can instill the D--he has the tools.

9) Jerryd Bayless (Age: 23/UFA)
--I'm not sold on his shooting, as career trends point him to be an infrequent three point shooter at 6'3" 208 lbs and he only shoots 35.0% on them for his career. But, he shot 42.3% this season for Toronto, even though he's more of a scorer than a shooter, and we'll see if that shooting can hold up. He just completed his rookie contract, made $3mil this past season, and had a breakout season, so someone might break the bank for him and make him a toxic contract. Still, the depth of the class and the uncertainty of his game in past years might relegate him to a mini-mid-level type, which is why he's in this list. Bayless's defense is definitely in question in both man-to-man and team situations, but he does draw charges at least. Still, he's a scorer with side-passing ability, and with questionable sustainable long range shooting and defense not sure if he's the best fit here.

10) Terrence Williams (Age: 25/RFA)
--He's not a shooter (infrequent three point attempts/career 31.5% from distance) but at 6'6" 220 lbs he has proven able to guard both swing positions decently and put up decent team defensive numbers in the past. He's set back by immaturity, but he's a youthful talent that can help the Lakers defensively, and he has been a triple double threat with New Jersey in his rookie year, even if the Lakers don't need that. Again, he's not needed and he's a RFA, and the Kings might keep him. Just throwing him out here.

11) Michael Redd (Age: 32/UFA)
--Redd's made over $100mil for his career and made $18.3mil just last year, so he'd be more than happy to take the veteran minimum to rejoin Steve Nash with the Lakers. But with his injury history, always questionable defense and generally overrated shooting (he hasn't shot above 31.8% from deep in his last 79 games, and fashions himself more of a scorer than shooter for his career), it's hard to see the Lakers looking at him. He seems like an old 32 as well, something the Lakers don't need.

12) C.J. Miles (Age: 25/UFA)
--May or may not be out of our price range, but being reared by Jerry Sloan's teams, he treats defense as hacking guys, more or less, and doesn't make defensive plays. Still, he can guard both swing positions, and his defense is quite defense in both man-to-man and team defense, and with his youth that could fit the Lakers. Where he doesn't fit the Lakers is that he's a career 32.9% three point shooter and takes a lot of mid-range shots instead of drawing fouls to offset that. He doesn't rebound or pass either. Too scoring minded to fit the Lakers' plans, and not a good enough three point shooter to be reared either, despite the defense.

13) Donte Greene (Age: 24/UFA)
--Okay, he's 6'11" 226 lbs, but defensively he might be a hidden gem--his individual stats aren't good, but teamwise defense he's quite good, and he gets a few blocks and makes quite a few defensive plays. I know he isn't the three point shooter we need though.


14) Dominic McGuire (Age: 26/UFA)
Very useful defensive player at 6'9" 235 lbs--got a ton of steals and blocks this year, and has had good rebound rates in the past. Positive team defender, although Golden State's horrible defensive schemes prevented him from making an impact in man-to-man. Zero range, negates him as a Lakers choice.


15) Bobby Simmons (Age: 32/UFA)
--Was out of the league in 2011. Single digit PERs in 2010 and 2012. He's a career 39.6% three point shooter and at 6'6" 235 lbs carries a defensive rep, but he never made any defensive plays for his career and has been losing it. He hasn't been relevant since 2009.

16) Gilbert Arenas (Age: 30/UFA)
--Just kidding.



GUYS WHO THE LAKERS MIGHT AFFORD, BUT ARE ALREADY EMBEDDED INTO DEEP PLAYOFF TEAMS AND LIKELY WON'T LEAVE: 

1) Daniel Green (Age: 25/RFA)

Green made $2.7mil this year but late round playoff games aside, had an excellent season and burst into the scene as a ready made role player for a deep playoff team. Like Pietrus below, I have doubts that the Lakers can poach him, because he was undervalued last year, and likely because he's in a deep playoff team he'll stay with the Spurs anyway, given that they can match any offers and likely will. Green seems better as a team defender than as a man defender, but he can guard both swing positions, SF more effectively at 6'6" 210 lbs. He's also a 41.8% career three point shooter. He's also long and a good shotblocker, racks up steals and doesn't foul too much. At age 25, that's a ready-made role player with many good years to come. That's why the Spurs will match, even if the Lakers offer their full mini-midlevel.


2) Delonte West (Age: 28/UFA)

West is an underrated defender--he can defend both guard positions, and can even hold down PGs in man-to-man situations, and has for the most part always yielded positive team defensive results. He also has super quick hands and will almost certainly help the Lakers in the steals department, and is an above average shotblocker particularly at 6'3" 180 lbs. He does an excellent job of avoiding fouls as well. That's certainly all the Lakers need to cover up Steve Nash.

West doesn't feel compelled to jack up many threes at all, but it's of note that he shoots them at a career 37.2% pace. His obligations are combo guard--he has very good court vision so that he can play PG at a pinch, and the benefit is that he can do this at both offense and defense, unlike some players. He's particularly excellent at pulling up for mid-range jumpers. But for the Lakers, we don't need extra passing and we need more side shooting. In fact, his game might be a little too rich for the Lakers' tastes as currently constructed.

Still, it's better to have more talented players than niche players when the going gets tough, and that's why I put West above Pietrus below, who's less talented but provides more of what the Lakers needed. West might be looking for more pay--he's never made more than $4.2mil in a contract, only made $1.1mil this year, and his game certainly warrants more $. He's bipolar and that might be scaring teams off, but with Dallas's roster in flux I'd say it's an easy shoo-in for him to resign with the Mavericks anyway.

3) Mickael Pietrus (Age: 30/UFA)

I doubt this would come to fruition, with Boston needing a backup SF for Paul Pierce, and Pietrus did play well in the playoffs, showing toughness on defense against LeBron James and coming back from that scary neck fall. But, I just put him in this list because he's also another 3's/D player. He's not as good a three point shooter as we'd like to believe (35.6%), but considering he's taking nearly two-thirds of his shots as threes he's probably coming out ahead in the bargain. He's proven in the past to be a plus defender against both swings and in team defense, as well, although there are seasonal variations where he's more decent than good. But he wears his heart on his sleeve and goes all out, and that sort of moxie could be what the Lakers need.

He's made mid-level $ during his time in Phoenix and has had total earnings in excess of 33million, but having made the minimum with Boston last year and made an impact, he might want something in the 2-3mil range. In the end, I think sentiment wins and he returns to the Celts. But a good fit if he somehow leaves there.

4) Steve Novak (Age: 29/UFA)

The reason Novak's this low, considering his breakout season this year, is because I think it's a greater priority for the Lakers to have better perimeter defenders to supplement Nash as opposed to better shooters in general. Don't get me wrong, the Lakers sorely need shooting, but Novak's D has been precisely the attribute that has held him down in the past. He's forced to play power forwards by default, but often is hidden in defensive schemes into weaker links, and he doesn't make defensive plays. This season he actually fit into NYK's schemes on defense in both man and team defense, but we have to wonder if that was a fluke.  He's also never played more than 20 minutes a game before, and has spent most of his six seasons prior bouncing from team to team with little purpose than garbage time sopper. That's why he's always been in contracts of less than one million, but he might be trying to get some team to give him a toxic contract. With his season, he's a definite candidate for one.

If he played even just average defense, cumulatively, I'd say the Lakers would've jumped on Novak. But he's approaching 30 and that's the age where the footspeed starts to get worse. The reason for the jump is that Novak knows his role--he's a career 43.6% three point shooter, and he takes almost three-quarters of his shots from that distance. The end result is that he always has insane TS% for his career, and could make especially valuable with all the various double teams the Lakers draw and the playmaking Steve Nash possesses. It doesn't matter if he does everything else horribly--Eddie House has made a living doing the same thing. Not saying Novak's like House, but that's the general idea.

Also, the Knicks need shooters to take advantage of Melo and Amare's possible doubles, and they have the personnel (Kidd, likely Lin) to make those passes. It's likely the Knicks would want to pay Novak and also JR Smith for that reason, so I can't see him leaving.

5) Gerald Green (Age: 26/UFA)

I expect New Jersey to hold on to Green (they refused to trade him to Atlanta in the flotsam deal). He also had a good end to the season this year, caught some of what made him special in the first place (finally), and ironically, after the Lakers let him go from their summer league. He's not quite the 3's/D player we need, because he's more score-first than spot up shooter, and his defense wavers very frequently and is quite lackluster (although it has potential). Sort of like a younger, poor man's T-Mac in terms of his shooting stroke and athleticism. He's still acute for the Lakers in terms of skill set. But, just a footnote.

FINAL MOCK UP? ACCOUNTING FOR PHYSICAL TOOLS

So the draft measurements just got released today. We found out information about each draftee's lateral quickness, end to end speed, vertical leap, strength (how many weights they can lift), and wingspan. I created an algorithm that gave weighting factors which benefited vertical leap, strength and wingspan--those are the three core factors that can spell success in the league. I built off my previous algorithm, so if you see a player jump a ton of spots--I'm looking at you, Orlando Johnson and Thomas Robinson, their physical tools are why. They really ranked well at that. Also, this is another element that translates well--while my models try to account for easily translatable statistical production skills relative to position (which is why Andrew Nicholson and Austin Rivers, guys I perceive as relatively one-dimensional, rank horribly), this element shows whether the player's build (not just height and weight, but more in depth) can truly translate. Without further ado, my algorithm churned out these player build rankings (only 56 players participated in the combine)

ANALYSIS OF THE DRAFT, MY MOCK SECOND ROUND

Continuing from the previous mock analysis....

Analysis of the draft, my mock first round

So we've done the quantitative allocations of numbers to prospects in the last post, but let's get to the heart of it and qualitatively explain why it's logical to pick them at that position. If they're expected to be at that position, from NBADraft, Draftexpress, I won't comment on it.

Without further ado...

NBA Draft Analysis, Revised and More Accurate

So you might have noticed in my last post that I just took the average number placements of both of my models (the statistical college NBA attributes model and the NBA body-skills model) and tried to get the sum average of those placements. Well...that was faulty. I had numbers that gave the players the proper weighting, but out of laziness I didn't do it. Well, now I have. Also, I've added a few more draft-likely players to the list, so we can get a greater representation. So here's my results now:

NBA Draft 2012: Analysis

So I've scouted this draft extensively, and created three different working models: one that accounts for NBA-translatable skills, such as rebounding, defensive plays (steals+blocks), mutual exclusion properties (my term for the rate of threes and free throw attempts a player takes), college strength of schedule (a player who comes from a division I obviously is stronger than one at a division III), and free throw shooting (a factor that generally stays constant regardless of league; also to make sure the player can shoot). Most of all, it's a model that rewards younger players: obviously, a college freshman is going to have far weaker stats than a college senior, so there's a weighting factor based on age and years in college that actually helps freshman a lot. Again, the younger the player, the more "potential" they have, since they have more mileage and athleticism when they come into the league, generally speaking.