Shaq > Darko

[PosImpos]

http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/28124/shaq-vs-darko-losing-ugly

Check out this article, it's a short yet interesting read.  Even with as few minutes as he played for us, all of the smartest stats guys in the business agreed that Shaq was more valuable to the Celtics than Darko was to the Wolves -- and not even strictly on a per-minute basis.

The basic argument is that since Darko is a net negative for his team anytime he's on the floor, even 2 minutes of Shaq is more valuable than 2,000 minutes of Darko.  Instead of playing Darko 2,000 minutes, the argument goes, you could get a "replacement player" on the waiver wire or from the D-league (say, a Semih Erden type) who would be more valuable and more deserving of those minutes.  Pretty rough indictment of Darko as a player.

[Roy H.]

Interesting.  I can't say that I've seen a ton of Twolves games this year, but Darko looked respectable enough in the games I did see.  His defense is above-average, his rebounding is mediocre, and his offense is what I'd consider below-average, rather than terrible.  It's got to be the turnovers that bring him down.

I'm guessing the on court / off court differentials are terrible for him, but in terms of the normal counting stats, Darko wasn't that bad.

[StartOrien]

I'd certainly rather have Darko right now.

Sad face times a billion.

[xmuscularghandix]

Darko would be better for Minny if he went after rebounds instead of making sure Kevin Love get's his double doubles.

[PosImpos]

I think with Darko the main issue is his 47% field goal percentage, which is awful for a 7 ft center who primarily takes shots inside.  He's simply a terrible offensive player.

[GreenEnvy]

I'd certainly rather have Darko right now.

Sad face times a billion.

I wouldn't.

The article clearly states Darko was had a negative-impact on him team.

Even if Shaq continues to sit, no Shaq at all is better than Darko. Darko's value was below a "replacement player," and Shaq's minutes would go to JO, BBD and Krstic - all of which are significantly above replacement value.

Shaq makes our offense run much smoother and doesn't make our overall defense as bad as his reputation would like many to believe.

[ram]

wrong thread

[StartOrien]

I'd certainly rather have Darko right now.

Sad face times a billion.

I wouldn't.

The article clearly states Darko was had a negative-impact on him team.

Even if Shaq continues to sit, no Shaq at all is better than Darko. Darko's value was below a "replacement player," and Shaq's minutes would go to JO, BBD and Krstic - all of which are significantly above replacement value.

Shaq makes our offense run much smoother and doesn't make our overall defense as bad as his reputation would like many to believe.

I read the article, twice  (VERY slow day yesterday), and I couldnt' really get my head around it. I'm w/ Roy, I haven't seen a lot of Timberwolves games but I certainly thought Darko was playing decent.

Per 36 numbers: 12. 8 points, 7.7 rebounds, 3 blocks, 3 turnovers

I'd take that in the playoffs

[Roy H.]

I'd certainly rather have Darko right now.

Sad face times a billion.

I wouldn't.

The article clearly states Darko was had a negative-impact on him team.

Even if Shaq continues to sit, no Shaq at all is better than Darko. Darko's value was below a "replacement player," and Shaq's minutes would go to JO, BBD and Krstic - all of which are significantly above replacement value.

Shaq makes our offense run much smoother and doesn't make our overall defense as bad as his reputation would like many to believe.

I'd be interested in seeing how they arrived at their conclusions in the article.  For instance, over the last two years Perk has been very low in terms of "win shares".  I'm curious as to whether he'd also be considered below replacement value.  (This year, even on a Per-48 minute basis, he certainly would, as he had fewer win shares than Darko).  To me, that seems like "advanced" statistics are possibly missing the reality of the situation.

If we accept that Darko's defense was good (as one of the statsheads said), then he must be *really* terrible on offense to justify such a low ranking.  Well, at least in terms of raw stats, is he?

He averaged 12.9 points per 36 minutes on 46.9%.

Here are some comparable players:  

Marc Gasol -- 13.2 pts / 36 @ 52.7%
Nenad Krstic -- 13.2 pts / 36 @ 43.3%
Tyson Chandler -- 13.1 pts / 36 @ 65.4%
Serge Ibaka -- 13.1 pts / 36 @ 54.3%
Javale McGee -- 13.1 pts / 36 @ 55.0%
Andrew Bogut -- 13.0 pts / 36 @ 49.5%
Kris Humphries - 12.9 pts / 36 @ 52.7%
Joakim Noah -- 12.8 pts / 36 @ 52.5%
Chris Andersen -- 12.3 pts / 36 @ 59.9%
Spencer Hawes -- 12.2 pts / 36 @ 46.6%
Greg Monroe -- 12.2 pts / 36 @ 55.1%
Matt Bonner -- 12.1 pts / 36 @ 46.4%
Samuel Dalembert -- 12.0 pts / 36 @ 47.3%
Boris Diaw -- 12.0 pts / 36 @ 49.2%
Emeka Okafor -- 11.7 pts / 36 @ 57.3%
Kwame Brown -- 11.0 pts / 36 @ 51.7%
Jermaine O'Neal -- 10.8 pts / 36 @ 45.9%
Chuck Hayes -- 10.1 pts / 36 @ 51.7%
Antonio McDyess -- 10.1 pts / 36 @ 49.1%
Zaza Pachulia -- 10.1 pts / 36 @ 46.1%
DeAndre Jordan -- 10.0 pts / 36 @ 68.6%
Brendan Haywood -- 8.7 pts / 36 @ 57.4%
Kendrick Perkins -- 8.4 pts / 36 @ 51.5%
Andris Biedrins -- 7.6 pts / 36 @ 53.4%
Jeff Foster -- 7.2 pts / 36 @ 47.9%
Marcus Camby - 6.5 pts / 36 @ 39.8%
Kurt Thomas - 6.4 pts / 36 @ 51.1%

Of course, Darko isn't as efficient as a lot of those players, but in terms of raw points, it's hard to argue that he's terrible.  Points aren't the only way to measure offense, though?  What about assists?  Well, his 2.2 assists per 36 would rank him near the top of all centers.  He's middle of the road in terms of offensive rebounding (ahead of guys like Boozer, Amare, Horford, Odom, Marc Gasol, and yes, Shaq).  The big place where Darko hurts his team is turnovers -- 40th overall in terms of turnovers per minute, and near the top for big men -- but I'm not sure that his high turnover rate drags him down into the territory of complete garbage.

So, if you look at points, assists, and offensive rebounds, you see that Darko is actually pretty respectable.  Couple that with good defense, and I'd argue that the player you're looking at is well above D-League / replacement quality.  

Jeez, I've wasted way too much time on Darko, but from what I saw this year he just wasn't that bad, and the counting stats seem to back that up.

[jgod213]

similar to what roy and orien have said, i havent watched much of any TWolves games, but i DID have Darko on my fantasy squad (yeah my team IS that bad) and i was pretty impressed with his growth from last year.

At his height this year, he posted 3 straight games of 23pts/16rbs/6blocks/5assists, 21pts/4rebs/3blocks, and 22pts/8rebs/5blocks against the Lakers, Thunder, and Spurs, respectively.

To me it seemed Darko's biggest issues are tied to staying on the court due to both injury and foul trouble.  He's a borderline elite shotblocker and really battles on the offensive glass.

[Fafnir]

I'd certainly rather have Darko right now.

Sad face times a billion.

I wouldn't.

The article clearly states Darko was had a negative-impact on him team.

Even if Shaq continues to sit, no Shaq at all is better than Darko. Darko's value was below a "replacement player," and Shaq's minutes would go to JO, BBD and Krstic - all of which are significantly above replacement value.

Shaq makes our offense run much smoother and doesn't make our overall defense as bad as his reputation would like many to believe.

I'd be interested in seeing how they arrived at their conclusions in the article.  For instance, over the last two years Perk has been very low in terms of "win shares".  I'm curious as to whether he'd also be considered below replacement value.  (This year, even on a Per-48 minute basis, he certainly would, as he had fewer win shares than Darko).  To me, that seems like "advanced" statistics are possibly missing the reality of the situation.

If we accept that Darko's defense was good (as one of the statsheads said), then he must be *really* terrible on offense to justify such a low ranking.  Well, at least in terms of raw stats, is he?

He averaged 12.9 points per 36 minutes on 46.9%.

Here are some comparable players:  

Marc Gasol -- 13.2 pts / 36 @ 52.7%
Nenad Krstic -- 13.2 pts / 36 @ 43.3%
Tyson Chandler -- 13.1 pts / 36 @ 65.4%
Serge Ibaka -- 13.1 pts / 36 @ 54.3%
Javale McGee -- 13.1 pts / 36 @ 55.0%
Andrew Bogut -- 13.0 pts / 36 @ 49.5%
Kris Humphries - 12.9 pts / 36 @ 52.7%
Joakim Noah -- 12.8 pts / 36 @ 52.5%
Chris Andersen -- 12.3 pts / 36 @ 59.9%
Spencer Hawes -- 12.2 pts / 36 @ 46.6%
Greg Monroe -- 12.2 pts / 36 @ 55.1%
Matt Bonner -- 12.1 pts / 36 @ 46.4%
Samuel Dalembert -- 12.0 pts / 36 @ 47.3%
Boris Diaw -- 12.0 pts / 36 @ 49.2%
Emeka Okafor -- 11.7 pts / 36 @ 57.3%
Kwame Brown -- 11.0 pts / 36 @ 51.7%
Jermaine O'Neal -- 10.8 pts / 36 @ 45.9%
Chuck Hayes -- 10.1 pts / 36 @ 51.7%
Antonio McDyess -- 10.1 pts / 36 @ 49.1%
Zaza Pachulia -- 10.1 pts / 36 @ 46.1%
DeAndre Jordan -- 10.0 pts / 36 @ 68.6%
Brendan Haywood -- 8.7 pts / 36 @ 57.4%
Kendrick Perkins -- 8.4 pts / 36 @ 51.5%
Andris Biedrins -- 7.6 pts / 36 @ 53.4%
Jeff Foster -- 7.2 pts / 36 @ 47.9%
Marcus Camby - 6.5 pts / 36 @ 39.8%
Kurt Thomas - 6.4 pts / 36 @ 51.1%

Of course, Darko isn't as efficient as a lot of those players, but in terms of raw points, it's hard to argue that he's terrible.  Points aren't the only way to measure offense, though?  What about assists?  Well, his 2.2 assists per 36 would rank him near the top of all centers.  He's middle of the road in terms of offensive rebounding (ahead of guys like Boozer, Amare, Horford, Odom, Marc Gasol, and yes, Shaq).  The big place where Darko hurts his team is turnovers -- 40th overall in terms of turnovers per minute, and near the top for big men -- but I'm not sure that his high turnover rate drags him down into the territory of complete garbage.

So, if you look at points, assists, and offensive rebounds, you see that Darko is actually pretty respectable.  Couple that with good defense, and I'd argue that the player you're looking at is well above D-League / replacement quality.  

Jeez, I've wasted way too much time on Darko, but from what I saw this year he just wasn't that bad, and the counting stats seem to back that up.

Roy his TS% is .482 is bottom 5 in the league for a C, combine that his high turnover rate I think its pretty easy to understand that he's a huge negative on offense.

Also his per minutes stats have the heaviest pace adjustment in the league because they played at the fastest pace in the league.

[StartOrien]

Roy his TS% is .482 is bottom 5 in the league for a C, combine that his high turnover rate I think its pretty easy to understand that he's a huge negative on offense.

Also his per minutes stats have the heaviest pace adjustment in the league because they played at the fastest pace in the league

Couldn't you argue that some of those turnover issues are related to the way the Timberwovles run their offense? Both a very fast pace, and asking him to do more than he's truly capable of.

[Fafnir]

Roy his TS% is .482 is bottom 5 in the league for a C, combine that his high turnover rate I think its pretty easy to understand that he's a huge negative on offense.

Also his per minutes stats have the heaviest pace adjustment in the league because they played at the fastest pace in the league

Couldn't you argue that some of those turnover issues are related to the way the Timberwovles run their offense? Both a very fast pace, and asking him to do more than he's truly capable of.

You could I suppose, similar to how people say he's okay at rebounding because he's next to Kevin Love to excuse his poor rebounding.

[Roy H.]

I'd certainly rather have Darko right now.

Sad face times a billion.

I wouldn't.

The article clearly states Darko was had a negative-impact on him team.

Even if Shaq continues to sit, no Shaq at all is better than Darko. Darko's value was below a "replacement player," and Shaq's minutes would go to JO, BBD and Krstic - all of which are significantly above replacement value.

Shaq makes our offense run much smoother and doesn't make our overall defense as bad as his reputation would like many to believe.

I'd be interested in seeing how they arrived at their conclusions in the article.  For instance, over the last two years Perk has been very low in terms of "win shares".  I'm curious as to whether he'd also be considered below replacement value.  (This year, even on a Per-48 minute basis, he certainly would, as he had fewer win shares than Darko).  To me, that seems like "advanced" statistics are possibly missing the reality of the situation.

If we accept that Darko's defense was good (as one of the statsheads said), then he must be *really* terrible on offense to justify such a low ranking.  Well, at least in terms of raw stats, is he?

He averaged 12.9 points per 36 minutes on 46.9%.

Here are some comparable players:  

Marc Gasol -- 13.2 pts / 36 @ 52.7%
Nenad Krstic -- 13.2 pts / 36 @ 43.3%
Tyson Chandler -- 13.1 pts / 36 @ 65.4%
Serge Ibaka -- 13.1 pts / 36 @ 54.3%
Javale McGee -- 13.1 pts / 36 @ 55.0%
Andrew Bogut -- 13.0 pts / 36 @ 49.5%
Kris Humphries - 12.9 pts / 36 @ 52.7%
Joakim Noah -- 12.8 pts / 36 @ 52.5%
Chris Andersen -- 12.3 pts / 36 @ 59.9%
Spencer Hawes -- 12.2 pts / 36 @ 46.6%
Greg Monroe -- 12.2 pts / 36 @ 55.1%
Matt Bonner -- 12.1 pts / 36 @ 46.4%
Samuel Dalembert -- 12.0 pts / 36 @ 47.3%
Boris Diaw -- 12.0 pts / 36 @ 49.2%
Emeka Okafor -- 11.7 pts / 36 @ 57.3%
Kwame Brown -- 11.0 pts / 36 @ 51.7%
Jermaine O'Neal -- 10.8 pts / 36 @ 45.9%
Chuck Hayes -- 10.1 pts / 36 @ 51.7%
Antonio McDyess -- 10.1 pts / 36 @ 49.1%
Zaza Pachulia -- 10.1 pts / 36 @ 46.1%
DeAndre Jordan -- 10.0 pts / 36 @ 68.6%
Brendan Haywood -- 8.7 pts / 36 @ 57.4%
Kendrick Perkins -- 8.4 pts / 36 @ 51.5%
Andris Biedrins -- 7.6 pts / 36 @ 53.4%
Jeff Foster -- 7.2 pts / 36 @ 47.9%
Marcus Camby - 6.5 pts / 36 @ 39.8%
Kurt Thomas - 6.4 pts / 36 @ 51.1%

Of course, Darko isn't as efficient as a lot of those players, but in terms of raw points, it's hard to argue that he's terrible.  Points aren't the only way to measure offense, though?  What about assists?  Well, his 2.2 assists per 36 would rank him near the top of all centers.  He's middle of the road in terms of offensive rebounding (ahead of guys like Boozer, Amare, Horford, Odom, Marc Gasol, and yes, Shaq).  The big place where Darko hurts his team is turnovers -- 40th overall in terms of turnovers per minute, and near the top for big men -- but I'm not sure that his high turnover rate drags him down into the territory of complete garbage.

So, if you look at points, assists, and offensive rebounds, you see that Darko is actually pretty respectable.  Couple that with good defense, and I'd argue that the player you're looking at is well above D-League / replacement quality.  

Jeez, I've wasted way too much time on Darko, but from what I saw this year he just wasn't that bad, and the counting stats seem to back that up.

Roy his TS% is .482 is bottom 5 in the league for a C, combine that his high turnover rate I think its pretty easy to understand that he's a huge negative on offense.

Also his per minutes stats have the heaviest pace adjustment in the league because they played at the fastest pace in the league.

I'm not saying that he's a good player, but if we all agree that he plays above-average defense, are his offensive numbers so bad that he's at D-League level?

I don't think so.  Maybe he's a below average NBA center, but he's a competent one, especially based upon some of the other other guys floating around the league.

[BballTim]

I'd certainly rather have Darko right now.

Sad face times a billion.

I wouldn't.

The article clearly states Darko was had a negative-impact on him team.

Even if Shaq continues to sit, no Shaq at all is better than Darko. Darko's value was below a "replacement player," and Shaq's minutes would go to JO, BBD and Krstic - all of which are significantly above replacement value.

Shaq makes our offense run much smoother and doesn't make our overall defense as bad as his reputation would like many to believe.

I'd be interested in seeing how they arrived at their conclusions in the article.  For instance, over the last two years Perk has been very low in terms of "win shares".  I'm curious as to whether he'd also be considered below replacement value.  (This year, even on a Per-48 minute basis, he certainly would, as he had fewer win shares than Darko).  To me, that seems like "advanced" statistics are possibly missing the reality of the situation.

  I'm pretty sure that basketballreference WS/48 for an average nba player is 0.1, and Perk's been well above that the three years prior to this one.