How Bad Are the Suns?

by JSun on Apr 14, 2009 10:31 AM MDT Comment 7 comments

I read somewhere that with 45 wins, they have the third-highest total to never make the playoffs in the 16-team format. Maybe 46 before this is all over. 48, by GSW last year, was the highest total ever.

A list of bad losses (meaning, to bad teams they should have beat) includes:

Pre-Gentry:

Chicago (11/7), Miami (11/28), New Jersey (11/30), Indiana (1/7), Minnesota (1/16), New York (1/21), Charlotte (1/23), Chicago (1/31), Golden State (2/4), Philadelphia (2/9),

Post-Porter:

Miami (3/4), Sacramento (3/29), Memphis (3/10)

Don't read into this; Gentry hasn't had the opportunity to lose too many of those games and he did navigate the 0-6 stretch that killed the Suns in early March. Anyway, that's 13 games. Against those teams, the Suns should have easily won 7 games. The teams of yesteryear would have done at least that much. That's 52 or 53 wins -- maybe more. Right now, Denver is in second with 54 wins (and one game to go). The Suns are also under .500 on the road since for the first time (I think) since the last time they missed the playoffs.

I have no idea what all this means. It could mean that with a little tweaking they are a contender and top-four WCF playoff team. It could mean that the aging vets didn't care enough to give it their best effort against inferior teams. It could mean that the team doesn't care enough to come out and play on a consistent basis. It could mean Porter was doing something wrong. It could mean that next year, the development of a bench could give the aging vets some rest during the season when the inferior teams are on the schedule.

It does mean the Suns have under-achieved this year.

No point, just some observations to keep in mind when considering the necessary off-season moves.

0 recs | Comment 7 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Trajectory

I think the question here isn’t if the Suns are good. They are good. A 45 win team in the Western Conference is a pretty good team. That said, the Suns do have a real problem: trajectory. They’ve gone from 61 to 55 and now 45 wins, and those 45 wins aren’t like the Hawks’ 45 wins. Three of our major contributors (Nash, Shaq, and Hill) are older, and our brightest prospect (Amare) regressed this season. Furthermore, the Suns future assets are mediocre: a late lottery pick this season and nothing in 2010 (when the draft class should be stronger) in addition to an owner that is looking (not unjustifiably) to cut salaries but only has some very difficult to trade salaries.

So I think the worry here is can this situation be fixed at all without the team at some point falling off a cliff (i.e. Memphis three years ago). Maybe Kerr can. We’ve got a few decent prospects, JRich, who despite being somewhat overpaid is a relatively effective 2-guard, and a potential franchise-type player in Amare. But I don’t know if this is going to be enough.

It’ll be interesting to see where this team is compared to Detroit in two or so years, since they’re essentially trying to accomplish the same thing (rebuilding without completely collapsing) after making some similar transactions (hiring an inexperienced coach and bringing in a pricey, headlining veteran). We’ve got a better talent base than them, I think (not to mention locale), but I don’t know that I’d want my money on Kerr over Dumars.

Purchasing my Dragic jersey

by rosewood on Apr 14, 2009 3:40 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs

Amar'e's Trajectory

His (slight) regression (and it was slight, only a little under his career averages) was traded for Shaq’s “re-emergence” and this trade-off was part of the Porter Scheme. Or, at least, a by-product of it. This is the biggest part of my disdain for Shaq’s “successful” season.

Mmmmm ... Guinness

by JSun on Apr 14, 2009 3:51 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Regression

I don’t know that it makes much sense to compare a 26 year old statistics to his career averages, since those averages will be based disproportionately on years when he was clearly underdeveloped i.e. I don’t see how demonstrating that 26 year old Amare is better than 20-22 year old Amare (40% of his career games played) helps brighten the fact that he’s clearly playing worse than 24-25 year old Amare.

His FG% took a large drop from the past two years (.575, .590 to .539) as did his reb/36min and blk/36min. I think that one can probably blame some of that on Porter/Shaq (though Amare did play better with Shaq last year than he did w/o), and that should give us some hope for his future. But his regression this season wasn’t slight. It was substantial i.e. 10.5 reb/36 min to 7.9 reb/36 min is the difference between Al Horford as a rebounder and Josh Smith. That’s a drop.

Purchasing my Dragic jersey

by rosewood on Apr 14, 2009 4:47 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

That's the thing about last year's Shaq

D’Antoni knew how to use him as a complement to Amare, Nash, et al. Porter made him the centerpiece. That’s my beef. I’ve over-analyzed it before in other posts. I don’t know enough if that was by design or accident or neglect or what. I just don’t think it’s all on Stoudemire.

Amare was taking a lot more jumpers this year, too.

Mmmmm ... Guinness

by JSun on Apr 14, 2009 5:18 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Trajectory is right...

The choice, in my mind, is the one between sucking for a year or two, but then rebounding back into contention, or just being a bottom dweller for the next 5 or 6 years, and hoping for a good Kobe/Wade/LeBron superstar type lottery pick somewhere down the road.

Bear in mind, as you point out, that we’re not the only team following a trajectory into Lotteryville. It’s clear that the Mavs and the Spurs are on that path, and despite their position in the conference this year, Denver aren’t too far off, either.

What intrigues me are what opportunities for signing free agents will arise once Shaq’s salary (and Nash’s) comes off the books, opening up a nice slot.

"True glory consists of doing what deserves to be written, and writing what deserves to be read".

by Pliny the Elder on Apr 14, 2009 4:48 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs