Pistons employ two of the league’s most “harmful” players

Over at Courtside Analyst, Ty reveals his twenty most harmful players from the previous season. Unsurprisingly, the list is populated by players from the league’s worst teams (with a few good teams finding their way to the list as well. Big Baby, anyone?).

Pistons fans who pay attention to Wins Produced won’t be surprised to learn that two Piston big men find themselves at 12th and 17th on the list, Jason Maxiell and Charlie Villanueva respectively.

Hit the link above to see the full list, and click here for an explanation of how Ty gets his numbers.

Are there any Free Agent Bigs to be had?

In today’s Pistons Mailbag, Keith Langlois observes:

It won’t be a very robust class of free agents in general, Isaac. Samuel Dalembert, Carl Landry, Kris Humphries and Tyson Chandler are among the headliners, but there’s a reasonable chance they all wind up staying with their current teams. The Pistons would have to get creative to land one of them in a sign-and-trade type of deal. Two others who would be attractive have early termination options, David West and Nene. West might not exercise his since teams would be less likely to give him a long-term deal while he rehabs from a torn ACL. Nene probably isn’t going anywhere, either. Yao Ming will be a free agent, but it’s anybody’s guess how that ends – he might not play again. Two restricted free agents, Marc Gasol and DeAndre Jordan, also are unlikely to switch teams.

Admittedly, I don’t know exactly what Keith means by “robust.” On the one hand, I agree with him in that I think it’s unlikely that a lot of big men will change teams this summer, so perhaps what he’s saying is there won’t be that many big men available for the Pistons. In this case, then I agree it won’t be robust.

But, perhaps he’s insinuating that the big men he goes on to list aren’t that valuable, and thus, the free agent class isn’t that robust. If that’s the case, then I disagree. As the numbers will demonstrate, there are several productive big men on the market, and while none of them will blow you away by scoring the basketball, that doesn’t mean their contribution isn’t critically important.

As always, to the numbers, and again as always, powered by NerdNumbers. (I’m excluding David West due to his serious injury)

Obviously, this short list doesn’t compare to the bonanza of 2010, and by contrast, it’s not nearly as robust. However, there are several useful big men on the market this summer, and while none of them offers points in bunches, several of them are more than capable of helping their teams win in other ways. And frankly, those are precisely the types of players the Detroit Pistons ought to be targeting.

Hopefully, Pistons management feels the same.

Updated Wins Produced

The Pistons aren’t very good + my personal computer died = very few posts from me lately.

But as the season winds to a close, and since the Pistons are now mathematically eliminated from the playoffs, I thought it might be worth quickly looking at the Wins Produced numbers thus far. As always, powered by NerdNumbers.

Update: thanks to Devin for pointing out that the numbers didn’t tally in my spreadsheet. 26.6 Wins Produced in total.

Greg Monroe continues to have a quietly brilliant season. In spite of the hype surrounding Griffin and Wall, Monroe deserves to be in the ROY conversation. He’s also a great case study in how difficult it is to project the performance of college players to the pros. As I’ve mentioned before, his college numbers were underwhelming.

Joe Dumars has some important decisions to make this summer about Jerebko and Stuckey, but one guy who’s not been discussed as part of the Pistons plans is Chris Wilcox. After a disappointing debut last season, Wilcox has put together a nice season for Detroit when his number’s been called. I certainly don’t think he’s the long-term solution at center next to Monroe, but if he could be had on a contract similar to the one he currently has, he’d be a very nice stop-gap.

Stuckey continues to be a tease. Over the past several games, Rodney has played well, which is reflected in the slight uptick in his Wins Produced per 48 minutes. And over these short stretches of good player, I often find myself second guessing …. myself.

Austin Daye still hasn’t taken the next step. I hope that what we’re seeing is a down, developmental year. But for most of the season, he’s looked awkward and uncomfortable, and that’s reflected clearly here.

In Defense of Starting Tracy McGrady… sort of

After five consecutive DNP-CD’s, Tracy McGrady was re-inserted into the starting lineup last night against the Spurs. Admittedly, this was surprising given the recent “mutiny,” as well as the strong play of Rodney Stuckey of late.

Less surprisingly, McGrady stepped up as he has done all season and performed wonderfully, filling up the stat sheet and posting a .390 WP48. Stuckey, on the other hand, struggled mightily to get anything going and was a non-factor at best.

More than one Pistons blog questions this coaching decision, and there are some very fair points in those critiques. Kuester is certainly grasping at straws, and it all feels a bit desperate. Further, it seems increasingly unlikely that McGrady will remain with the Pistons beyond this season, and it seems increasingly likely that Stuckey will.

I don’t disagree that Kuester’s almost constant juggling of the rotation is confusing for both players and fans.

However, the Wins Produced numbers suggest that Tracy McGrady has been the most productive Piston this season (followed closely by the ever-improving rookie, Greg Monroe), and my sense is that for many fans, this isn’t at all surprising. This time at least, Wins Produced might just pass the smell test of even the most skeptical fan.

If it’s the coach’s job to play the players that give the team the best chance of winning, then playing Tracy McGrady big minutes is Kuester’s best bet. For that reason, I am in full support of Tracy McGrady as the starting point guard for the rest of the season.

The flip side of the coin as it relates to the demoted Stuckey, though, is that Stuckey has clearly been the best Piston guard not named Tracy McGrady – especially lately. And while I still think we may be better off parting ways with Stuckey this summer, it doesn’t make any sense to relegate him to fourth guard in the rotation. None at all. (Yes, even if Rip finally had a good game.)

So kudos (I guess?), Coach Kuester, for making the obvious decision to get McGrady minutes. Next time, though, maybe it’s better to find those minutes somewhere else.

Will Shuffling the Pieces Solve the Puzzle?

If you haven’t heard yet, Pistons Coach John Kuester plans to shake up the starting lineup beginning tonight at Toronto. The Pistons have deployed multiple starting lineups this season, so why is this newsworthy? This time, Kuester is benching Richard Hamilton, who has been the “masked man” of the franchise for the better part of a decade, in favor of Ben Gordon.

I have a special affection for Rip Hamilton. Some of you may know that I was fortunate enough to play college basketball at a small liberal arts school, and as a freshman, I was struggling to figure out how I could improve my game so that I could contribute to my team. Over a holiday break, I asked my high school coach what he thought – and he told me to watch the way Rip Hamilton used screens to create space, both for himself but also for his teammates. And watch him intently I did, for hour after hour after hour. I modeled the way I tried to play on the court – using screens, moving without the ball, etc. – after the way he did. Naturally through this process, I became a Rip fan.

So like many Pistons fans, this news is bitter sweet. On the one hand, it’s another door closing on the old era that we cherish so dearly. On the other hand, this appears to be the right move for the present and the future. Put simply, at this point in their respective careers, Ben Gordon is the better player and appears to be the best option for the Pistons at starting SG.

This appears to be the consensus of conventional wisdom, and in the case of Hamilton vs. Gordon, the Wins Produced numbers agree. Here are the numbers through 28 games:

With Gordon now the starter, what can Pistons fans expect?

Keith Langlois, editor of Pistons.com, offers the following comments:

If Gordon as a starter can provide 18 or 20 points consistently and efficiently, the Pistons will be better than a 9-19 team. Maybe good enough to chip away at .500 and put themselves back in the playoff chase. But if Hamilton is true to his word and embraces his new role, then perhaps the Pistons can be significantly better than that. […]

Twenty points isn’t a magical barometer, I suppose, but both Hamilton and Gordon are primarily scorers. That’s their best asset. If they can figure a way to get each of them to score 15 a game, at least, the Pistons probably could mount a playoff push. […] With neither playing performing at close to capacity, why not reverse their roles?

Best case, both of them start scoring consistently and efficiently. But if it even jolts one of them back on course, the Pistons will be ahead of where they’ve been.

To sum up, there are three things Keith is arguing here. First, both Gordon and Hamilton are underperforming (at least that’s how I read them being “off course” at least). Second, if either one of them is “jolted back on course” by this change, the Pistons will be better moving forward than they’ve been. Third, if this change causes them both to play the way they did on October 28, 2009 on a consistent basis, the Pistons could complete the season at a better than .500 clip.

Wow! The Pistons, who have won just 9 of 28 thus far, might be able to anticipate finishing the season by winning more than 26 of their remaining 54 games simply by swapping the roles of two shooting guards. That is truly remarkable. But do any of the arguments hold up to scrutiny?

Are Gordon and Hamilton underperforming?

Rip’s performance this season hasn’t been good, and there’s no question about that. However, what may be surprising to some Pistons fans is that Rip has never been very productive relative to Wins Produced. In fact, his career season with the Pistons was 2003-2004 (at age 25) when he produced 4.7 wins with a WP48 of .081 (average is .100). Yes, in his best season with the Pistons, Rip was “below average.” Furthermore, Rip is getting old, and in spite of working tirelessly on his conditioning, Rip can’t defy age indefinitely. So while his performance is declining, it’s not clear to me whether this is the natural result of age or the result of being assigned the wrong role in the rotation.

What about the newly-signed, highly-paid Ben Gordon? His minutes, shot attempts, and points per game have all dropped since joining the Pistons. That must be a result of having two good scorers at the same position, right? Well, not necessarily, according to the numbers. Ben Gordon’s career season came in 2008-2009 with the Chicago Bulls (at age 25) where he produced 5.6 wins with a WP40 of .090 – remarkably similar to Rip’s career season, isn’t it? And while he has produced better numbers in other seasons prior to that one as well, this season is not a dramatic departure from what Gordon has offered in the past. Yes, he’s not performing optimally, but it’s not as bad as many people suggest.

So, while it’s true that both players aren’t performing optimally, it’s not clear that the roles of the perspective players are to blame.

Will the Pistons be better if either one thrives in a new role?

This one’s easy. If either player improves, and if the other’s production doesn’t fall of a cliff completely, yes, the Pistons will better. That’s obvious. If your individual players play better, of course the team is better. The question is, how much better? Langlois is clearly thinking playoffs – finishing the season 26-26 for a total of 37 wins is likely to put the team in the Playoff hunt. All due respect to Keith, I don’t think this is very likely.

As a thought experiment, let’s imagine that moving Ben Gordon into the starting lineup does propel him back to his peak performance (.090 WP48). Let’s also imagine that Ben Gordon averages 36 minutes per game at SG (ignoring for the moment how that impacts Rip’s minutes and position). With 54 games left to be played, the Pistons could expect approximately 3.6 wins from Ben Gordon. Given the relatively unproductive cast of players the Pistons employ, I struggle to see how an additional 3-4 wins matters much. Instead of winning 26-27 games as the current numbers project, the Pistons could win 29-31. To my eye, that amounts to fewer lottery balls, not a playoff berth.

A Case Study: October 28, 2009

I recently argued that the Pistons aren’t very good because the Pistons aren’t very good. Yes, I think it’s that simple. We don’t have many productive players; therefore, we don’t win much.

It is true, however, that this collection of players has played very well together at times – and one need look no farther than the first game this team every played together as a group on October 28, 2009. That night, Hamilton scored 25 points on 53% shooting, and Ben Gordon scored 22 points on 58% shooting – a remarkable shooting performance from both, to be sure. Langlois seems to suggest that this should be the case study – both for the fans and perhaps also for the coaching staff as well – that models what Dumars envisioned for this team when he put it together. If Kuester can find a way to replicate this performance, the Pistons problems will all be solved, right?

Alas, replicating that performance has been difficult. As Keith observes,

Remarkably, there has been only one other game since the two became teammates that both scored over 20 points. The other came last Feb. 21 when the Pistons beat San Antonio in overtime.

The good news is the Pistons are undefeated when Hamilton and Gordon score 20-plus. The bad news is it’s happened twice in 62 games when they’ve both been available. The worse news is they’ve had four games already this season in the 25 they’ve both played when each one finished in single digits. Last year, there was only one such game in the 37 when both played.

To put this as simply as possible – Gordon and Hamilton are not going to shoot over 50% on a regular basis, let alone on the same night. And as a result, history will keep repeating itself – the nights that both players score a lot and efficiently will continue to be rare, regardless of who’s starting and who’s coming off the bench.

How do I know this? Because of the statistics that the NBA tracks, I can view their career shooting percentages and see with absolute clarity that they’ve never shot above 50% consistently (and most SGs in the NBA don’t either, not even the best ones). So as fun as that game was to watch back on October 28, 2009 – and yes, I did watch and enjoy it – I think it’s unlikely to expect many games like that in 2010-2011.

In other words, juggling the rotation in hopes of achieving, “If we could just play like we did that one night last season, we could turn this thing around!” doesn’t seem like a very good strategy.

Same Pieces, Same Puzzle

Unfortunately for the Pistons and their fans, I don’t think changing the starting Shooting Guard will have a dramatic impact. I do agree that it’s the right move, and it seems to be the natural next step in the transition from the old guard to the new, but ultimately, not that much is changing. One unproductive SG is being replaced by a slightly less unproductive SG, and the rest of the Pistons problems – specifically, poor shooting, poor defense, and poor rebounding – remain.

Kuester can arrange the pieces however he wants – and I don’t fault him for trying – but the puzzle when completed is going to look very much the same.

A simple question with a simple answer

Over at Pistons.com, another Q&A with Keith Langlois and Joe Dumars has been released. The first two question drew my attention immediately. Keith asks,

KEITH LANGLOIS: Let’s start with a question I asked some of the players after the win over Atlanta. Was that the type of performance you envisioned when you put the roster together?

JOE DUMARS: Yes. When you put the roster together, you envision that particular team playing a certain style and a certain way. That changes based on your roster. With this particular roster, the idea is to have depth; the idea is to be able to go to your bench and have little to no dropoff. When you see a game like the Atlanta game, you sit there and you say that’s how this team is supposed to play. That’s the game plan right there – to be able to go nine or 10 deep and to be able to sustain for 48 minutes.

Okay, that’s fine as far as it goes. When Dumars was assembling this team, he envisioned a team that would be able to compete with and win against Playoff teams. Got it. Yet, this team struggles to do so, and by my count, the win against Atlanta is the first win against a quality opponent this season.

KL: The followup to that is a simple question and I suspect not a simple answer. Why in your mind has that type of performance been elusive?

JD: Tough answer. The Atlanta game is how it’s supposed to work. When we have these lulls and these droughts, when we have games where we don’t close out the fourth quarter like we’ve done so many times this year, you sit there and you look for answers. I can’t give you a simple answer why that is, but the Atlanta game is – if you just look at that – that is the game plan of how we’re supposed to play.

So our inability to compete isn’t lost on Langlois or Dumars, but the reasons why appear to be.

Winning in the NBA

I started this blog in order to offer a very specific type of statistical analysis, and that analysis might illumine these reasons. That analysis also suggests a very simple answer. The reason that victories similar to the one over Atlanta remain elusive is that the collection of players Dumars has assembled simply isn’t effective at doing the things it takes to win in the NBA.

I’ve provided several tables (like this one) detailing the individual win contributions of each player. (If you’re interested in a more recent table, you can check out Dr. Berri’s recent analysis here)

For this post, however, instead of creating another such table, I thought we could look at some very simple team stats and compare those team stats to the rest of the league. Where do the Pistons as a team rank relative to other NBA teams? (All statistics courtesy of http://www.basketball-reference.com)

Before we get to the stats, let me state in my own words my understanding of what NBA teams need to do in order to win basketball games in very basic terms:

• Make efficient use of their own possessions, i.e., score the ball efficiently and maintain possession of the ball (not give possessions away via turnover, in other words);
• Secure possession of the ball effectively (which also denies the opponent possession of the ball), because you can’t win in basketball without having the ball, i.e., grab plenty of rebounds and the get the occasional steal;
• Make it difficult for the opponent to make efficient use of their possessions, i.e., play good defense.

Regardless of one’s feelings on how successfully Wins Produced allocates win production to individual players, the three points above appear to be generally well accepted. So with that in hand let’s explore how the Pistons are performing as a group relative to these three things.

Efficiently Using Possessions?

When it comes to making use of our own possessions, we can examine three things easily. First is how efficiently we are scoring the ball. Looking at effective field goal percentage (explained here), the Pistons are shooting 48.2%, good for 22nd in the league (league average 49.7%).

Second is turnovers. The Pistons are better at taking care of the basketball than they are scoring it. Given that the pistons play at a relatively slow pace, it will be more useful to consider turnover percentage instead of totals, where the Pistons 13.1% turnover rate is good for 8th best in the league.

Finally is free throw attempts, but thus far the Pistons aren’t exceptional at getting the to free throw line — one of the most effective ways to score in the game.

So in sum, while we are good about retaining possession of the ball when we have it, we’re not very good about putting the ball in the hoop.

Securing Possession of the Ball?

When it comes to securing possession of the ball, we can examine rebounds and steals. When it comes to rebounding totals, the Pistons are 22nd in the league — not very encouraging. However, rebounding totals are also affected by the fact that the Pistons are currently playing at the 2nd slowest pace in the league — so again, we can compare rates over totals for a more complete picture.

Relative to offensive rebounding, the Pistons are respectable, posting numbers only slightly below the league average (25.9% relative to 26.3%). Given that we miss our fair share of shots, it’s nice to have players who hit the offensive glass. Relative to defensive rebounding, however, the Pistons are struggling mightily, posting numbers that rank them 22nd in league and well below the league average.

How about steals? In terms of totals, the Pistons rank 22nd in the league. Cellar dwellers, as it were.

So in sum, the Pistons are not very good at securing possession of the ball. The Pistons are respectable on the offensive glass, very poor on the defensive glass, and not very good at forcing turnovers.

Making Things Difficult for Opponents?

When it comes to making it difficult for opponents to use possessions efficiently, we already know that our defense doesn’t force many turnovers, and we can add that we rank 24th in the league in terms of blocked shots. Further, we know that the Pistons allow opponents to shoot 47.7% from the field and score 100 points per game (relative to our 44.5% and 94.7ppg). Moreover, our poor defensive rebounding means that we surrender the 11th most offensive rebounds to our opponents, i.e., we give the opposition several free possessions each game (in spite of not turning the ball over at a high rate). So the story the statistics tell is that we don’t make it very difficult for our opponents to do what they need to do to win.

Is the answer simple or not?

Okay, this post claims it will offer a simple answer. Here goes…

KL: The followup to that is a simple question and I suspect not a simple answer. Why in your mind has that type of performance been elusive?

Keith, the answer is actually quite simple. This type of performance has been elusive because the current cast of Pistons players hasn’t performed well — neither this season nor historically — relative to the things NBA teams must do in order to win basketball games. We don’t score the ball well, we don’t rebound the ball well, and we don’t defend well, and as a result, we don’t win much.

Ultimately, it’s not magic, rocket science, bad chemistry, or bad coaching, Keith and Joe. It’s just not-very-effective players playing not very effectively.

A familiar story unfolding in Motown

One of the findings of The Wages of Wins is that minutes played, player salaries, and points per game are correlated with one another. Put simply, players that score a lot of points tend to play a lot and make lots of money. What Dr. Berri and his colleagues discovered, however, is that winning games doesn’t necessarily correlate with the factors above. Or put simply, employing and paying players who score lots of points a lot of money and playing them big minutes doesn’t necessarily mean that your team will win lots of games.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, this is precisely what’s happening in Motown. The table below attempts to illustrate that the Pistons employ several players that manage to score points without helping the team win many games – and they pay many of these unproductive scorers plenty of money to do so.

As we can see quite clearly, of the top 5 Pistons scorers, only one is above average for his position relative to WP48 (the per minute derivative of Wins Produced. Yet, all 5 are among the leaders in minutes played, and with the exception of Stuckey who is on the last year of his rookie deal, they lead the team in terms of salary.

Unfortunately for the Pistons, after 12 games their top scorers are not performing particularly well relative to any of the other important aspects of the game (i.e., rebounding, steals, blocks). Stuckey’s shooting has cooled off, Charlie V either won’t or can’t grab enough rebounds, and Tay and Rip can’t throw the ball in the ocean. To his credit, BG continues to play relatively well, although he still isn’t playing up to his contract.

It’s precisely because our management has opted to employ too many relatively unproductive scorers and not enough productive scorers and non-scorers (i.e., Ben Wallace, Jonas Jerebko, Tracy McGrady) that we find ourselves where we are – right where we were last year, on the outside of the Playoffs looking in and hoping for a lottery pick that can help turn the team around.

(Salaries taken from here and here)

Maggette for Prince?

Ty, of Courtside Analyst, writes,

The Bucks should offer the Pistons a solution to their festering problem in the form of a trade of SFs — Corey Maggette for Tayshaun Prince.  It might be a win-win for both teams.  And as far as CBA Salary Cap considerations, I tested the trade on the RealGM trade checker, and it worked (Trade ID #5737973).

The reason I suggest that the Bucks offer up Maggette so soon after acquiring him is because he is off to a very slow start in Milwaukee and it looks a little bit like he does not fit the system.  He doesn’t look comfortable at all, and his production reflects that.  Plus, he’s not the kind of aggressive defender that Scott Skiles favors anyway, and it shows in his allotted minutes.  Many projected him as a starter, but he’s getting second string minutes.

From the Pistons perspective, they can end an embarrassing situation and pick up a nice talent that fits their roster and style.  Corey was a very prolific scorer the past few seasons in Golden State and those talents probably have not diminished a whole lot.  Plus his basket attacking style would provide a needed counterpart to Detroit’s long range shooters.

From Milwaukee’s perspective, Prince would be a great addition.  Prince is not nearly the scorer Maggette is, but he is a proven defender, he is versatile, he is a reliable long-range shooter, and he is a guy who will move the basketball around.  Those are all qualities Skiles favors.

At first, I thought this was a great idea. Maggette is a to-the-basket SF that scores efficiently and gets to the FT line. This is a combination of skills we haven’t had in Detroit for some time. And I agree with Ty that Prince’s days in Detroit are numbered, and given what Joe’s done with cap space lately, a player of Maggette’s category might be the best we could hope to get out of Prince’s expiring deal.

From a Wins Produced perspective, it’s mostly a wash. Automated Wins Produced lists Maggette as a PF, so the WP48 numbers don’t compare correctly; however, the Adj.P48 numbers are comparable for both players.

The obvious concern – that I completely overlooked at first – is the salary commitment Detroit would have to make to yet another perimeter player. And as much as I like Maggette’s skillset, I’m not sure I could support committing to a perimeter player of his caliber without some significant house-cleaning first.

Is Austin Daye Turning the Corner?

Commenter and fellow Pistons and Wins Produced aficionado Gabe recently pointed out that Austin Daye has been playing well recently (even if out of position). Gabe says,

It looks to me like Daye might be turning a corner. His non-scoring stats are holding steady, and his scoring efficiency is trending way up because of a hot streak from 3. Daye’s 3 point shooting % will go down, but there’s still some unrealized potential as he’s barely gotten to the line at all, if he can improve even a little bit at drawing free throws, his scoring efficiency should stay pretty good. He’s definitely not a PF, but paradoxically (to go back to a debate we had about a week ago), because of the crap-ness of the Pistons other candidates for minutes at PF, I think there is a chance that Daye is Q’s best option at PF on the roster.

I decided to take a quick look at some numbers, and Gabe’s absolutely right that Daye’s recent performance has been good. Because the season is so young, even a handful of games of good play can cause a large jump in WP48, and that’s exactly what’s happened.

After 3 games, Daye was producing in the negative range (-.174 WP48). After 10 games, Daye had moved into the positive range, but barely (.014 WP48). Now, only 3 games later, Daye has jumped to .068 WP48. Gabe is right to observe that this is largely due to a hot streak in shooting which will level off over time, but it’s encouraging nonetheless.

And for Pistons fans, at least there’s something to be interested in and excited about – a young player playing well isn’t something we’ve seen much of in recent years, and it certainly bears watching over the next several games.

Can Daye can continue to rebound well, keep blocking shots, keep knocking down open jumpers, and improve relative to getting to the FT line? I’m obviously biased as a Pistons fan, but I remain optimistic that Daye can do at least some of these things consistently, and if he can, I think we’ve found a very nice player who can be part of a core moving forward.

Joe Dumars disagrees with me

Joe Dumars had a Q&A session with Chris Iott of Mlive.com, which has been posted in pieces over the past few days. Apparently, he and I are seeing very different things with respect to certain Pistons players.

Regarding Monroe, Dumars says:

When he’s on the court, you don’t ever feel like he’s a lost rookie. He has an extremely high basketball IQ, he has a great feel for the game and he’s an exceptional passer. […] So, that’s what you’re seeing with him. I think that as he goes through this first cycle, he’s been good for us so far. I think he’ll be even better during the second cycle, meaning the second half of the year after he’s seen these guys for the first time, and now you play them again and again, he’ll have an idea of who these guys are.

Well, he really hasn’t been very good, Joe, respectfully. As I mentioned yesterday, he’s rebounded well – but he’s shooting sub 40% from the field! And then there’s the turnovers – which seem to get glossed over every time his passing skills are mentioned – and the fact that he doesn’t offer all that much on defense.

Regarding Daye, Dumars says:

I really like what Austin has done so far. Austin got moved to the four kind of in the middle of the preseason. He just kind of got moved to the four and we’ve asked him to go out there and battle guys where he’s giving up 40, 50 pounds. He’s never blinked an eye. Really liked him in the summer. Really liked him in training camp. Really liked him during the preseason. He’s been good during the start of the regular season, but we still are very encouraged by this young player. This is a skilled 6-11 guy who’s not afraid to stick his nose in there. Even if he gets knocked down, he kind of sticks his nose in there and keeps fighting. We like Austin. We like what he’s doing.

While I remain optimistic about Daye’s future at the 2 and 3, he has simply not been good at all at the 4. Not at all. He did have a very nice preseason, but he played major minutes at 2 and 3 during the preseason, but that hasn’t carried over into the regular, at least not yet.

Regarding our fallen Swede, Jonas Jerebko:

What Jonas provides for us doesn’t necessarily show up in the box score like you think. But that’s part of the continuity I was talking about. He’s one of those glue type of guys. The plays he makes, the diving on the floor, the taking the charge, the getting the extra rebound, man, we definitely miss that. Like I said, it’s probably one of those situations where it doesn’t show up in the box score, but it would really help if we had someone like him out there helping us right now.

I don’t want to be overly critical for the sake of being critical here, because Joe’s right (at least partially) that not all of what Jonas does makes the box score. And clearly, Joe values Jonas, as do I. But rebounds and steals – two things we aren’t very good at overall – do show up in the box score, both impact wins, and Jonas produces both. For whatever reason, these types of plays seem to get relegated to “hustle plays,” as if any player who hustles hard enough can produce them. While I’d agree that effort matters, rebounding and stealing the ball is as much talent as anything else – something Ben Wallace still demonstrates every night the Pistons take the floor. Unfortunately, when Joe inks contracts – at least of late – he seems to forget that.

Regarding not making trades this summer:

I would just say that I would assume for those who want trades that they would want good trades. The question for me is not, “Why no trades?” The question for me is, “If there’s not a good trade, why would I do it?” There was never a trade that made sense for us. It made no sense for us to make a trade if it was not going to be beneficial for us.

It seems to me, based on last season and the beginning of this season, that there shouldn’t be any “sacred cows” on this roster. Any trade that gets us out of the several bad contracts we have would benefit us, and there’s no one on the team that’s good enough to be untouchable (although I’m not sure I could live with Dumars if he traded Ben Wallace). To be fair, though, if I were a GM in the NBA, I’m not sure I’m buying what the Pistons are selling. So depending on what he means here, maybe we actually agree.

Lastly, Dumars on TMac:

I think so far, for about half of the eight games we’ve played, he’s looked good enough to help us on the court. There have been other games where he’s even kind of pulled himself and said, “I just don’t feel it tonight.” […] I’m very happy with how he’s kind of embraced the leadership role here. I’ve heard him speak up. I’ve heard him say the right stuff. I’ve seen him bring composure to the court when we’ve needed it. I’ve seen him play with a very high basketball IQ. So, those things have been all positives with Tracy

I’d be remiss to not give Joe credit where it’s due – he recognized talent where many other teams didn’t. But beyond that, it’s difficult for me to see what Dumars does.