The Golden Gate Moves to Boston

[PhoSita]

Just thought I'd post an interesting piece about our newest acquisition.  Was written a couple years ago.

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/courtvision-david-lees-interior-defense-a-k-a-the-golden-gate/

In the next possession, after an offensive rebound, Williams — who is still Lee’s assignment — gathers the ball at the free throw line. Lee is standing at the crown of the restricted area. After a power dribble in the paint, Williams elevates toward the basket, and in the same way a nice young man would hold the door for an elderly woman, Lee for some reason turns his body perpendicular to the backboard, clearing out of Williams’s path. Williams somehow misses the easy layup but quickly cleans up his mess with an easy putback. The good news is that the opponent shot only 50 percent in the restricted area during this possession, lower than Lee’s 61 percent average.

Another take:

http://wagesofwins.com/2013/03/12/david-lee-and-the-value-of-defense/

One other thing we have to be careful not to overreact to is how much Lee’s defense matters. I am very excited about the Spor**** data and have bugged several people about it. Knowing Lee’s defense is bad does not tell us how much that impacts his overall performance. My personal take? Based on the last several seasons, this definitely places Lee at average to below average in terms of total contribution. But, until we start quantifying exactly how much his defense is costing his team, we need to be careful about declaring Lee a bad player.

Another:

http://www.sbnation.com/2012/11/30/3710146/david-lee-golden-state-warriors-hook

By scouting report, Lee is a defensive disaster. His only marketable defensive skill is rebounding, where he's quite strong. But he has such a poor defensive reputation that when he once received an All-Defense vote the internet nearly imploded in disbelief. On-off data seems to back up the common perception. Last season, the Warriors' defense was five points per 100 possessions better with Lee on the bench. With Lee on the court, opponents had an effective field goal percentage of .505. With Lee on the bench, it was .478.

The numbers were virtually identical in 2010-11: the Warriors' defense was five points better with Lee sitting, primarily because of shooting. Using on-off data, Lee's offensive contribution has been nearly the exact converse of his defensive impact: the team has typically been 4-5 points better offensively with Lee on the court.

This is where things are exceptionally tricky. Using this type of data, it appears Lee is as good offensively as he is bad defensively. He has no net impact in total. There's a value in that, of course, because there are plenty of players who have net negative impacts. But for a player making the level of coin Lee is due, that's underwhelming

[hodgy03038]

Could we insert KO or TZ and see the same exact results? At least this guy will average 18/9 and pass well.

[PhoSita]

Could we insert KO or TZ and see the same exact results? At least this guy will average 18/9 and pass well.

Could we see more or less the same results with our younger players?  That's pretty much my question, too.

[PhoSita]

The core message I've been able to glean is that David Lee is not as offensively gifted as his numbers might suggest, but he is a useful offensive player.  He's not as terrible defensively as some of the worst takes make him out to be, but he's pretty bad nonetheless.  At best, it seems David Lee doesn't make much of an impact either way because the two sides of the court cancel out.

So we probably shouldn't expect much from him, other than box score production.

If you're really excited to see the Celtics play a more well-known player something like starter minutes, then I guess it's cause for celebration.

[kozlodoev]

If he's "average to below average" defensively, I wouldn't bat an eye. I'm concerned he may be worse.

[D.o.s.]

My kazoo is at the ready.

But, yes, I expect him to average Sully-ian numbers while we lose games.

[PhoSita]

If he's "average to below average" defensively, I wouldn't bat an eye. I'm concerned he may be worse.

Yeah, me too.  I'm actually a little surprised at how mild the takes in these articles were on D. Lee's defense.

The sense I've always had of D. Lee is that he's really at his best offensively as a center, but he can't defend the paint AT ALL.  He can't really defend the perimeter, either, so basically you're left hoping he can just kinda hang out in mid-range or defend post-ups all day.

Unfortunately, fewer and fewer matchups these days allow a starting power forward to hide like that defensively.  Perhaps pairing Lee with Amir will allow the team to mix and match, though.


Lee is a very poor man's Amare, and Amare was only a good player when he was overwhelming offensively.

[JR4]

To take a few quotes from articles years ago where the context was different than
the situation Lee is in now is not fair to David Lee.

Every defender even the best ... make mistakes. So you find a David Lee mistake and predict that
is the way he will be with the C's?  Ok, he may not be a great defender but just maybe
the guys around him like Johnson may help his D game.
Suggestion, give the guy a chance in this system before spreading doom and disaster.
So much pessimism on this board. As  a newbie I guess I'm overreacting.

[PhoSita]

To take a few quotes from articles years ago where the context was different than
the situation Lee is in now is not fair to David Lee.

The context was Lee being paid as the team's best player and getting starter minutes on a middling team that had higher aspirations.

Sounds like pretty much the same context as he'll have in Boston, except he's only got one year left on his deal, so the expectations are lower.

[D.o.s.]

To take a few quotes from articles years ago where the context was different than
the situation Lee is in now is not fair to David Lee.

Every defender even the best ... make mistakes. So you find a David Lee mistake and predict that
is the way he will be with the C's?  Ok, he may not be a great defender but just maybe
the guys around him like Johnson may help his D game.
Suggestion, give the guy a chance in this system before spreading doom and disaster.
So much pessimism on this board. As  a newbie I guess I'm overreacting.

I don't think it's pessimism so much as an emotional reaction from/about people who are obsessed enough with basketball that they know what it means when you refer to someone as, say, "the next Marcus Banks" in 2015. I feel like most of CB is pretty stoked on the David Lee acquisition, anyway.

[incoherent]

BUT...... We DID NOT get Lee to be a "great player" or a "contributor" on a "contender".

The advanced stats about his defense mean nothing to us.

We got Lee so we could save our 13 Mil TPE, and have another big body for ONE season. A season in which we have no delusions about trying to contend for a title.


All of these little stats about his bad defense, was well known to Danny, obviously. But we aren't a contender and non contenders getting a 1 year player to help keep our flexibility dont have to worry about these advanced defensive stats at all.

If you are really worried about if David Lee is bad, or good.. (which honestly, it doesnt matter if he is bad or good at all) Then all you have to do is ask yourself, "is he better then Wallace?"  The answer to that question, no matter what, is YES. 

[PhoSita]

I feel like most of CB is pretty stoked on the David Lee acquisition, anyway.

Right.  We're now hearing, "David Lee is the best player on our team!"  As if that's a good thing.

Which is, I think, what provokes the energetic response which amounts more or less to:




What does it say if the "best player on our team" was a DNP - CD most of the season for the best team in the league?

[PhoSita]

All of these little stats about his bad defense, was well known to Danny, obviously. But we aren't a contender and non contenders getting a 1 year player to help keep our flexibility dont have to worry about these advanced defensive stats at all.

If you are really worried about if David Lee is bad, or good.. (which honestly, it doesnt matter if he is bad or good at all) Then all you have to do is ask yourself, "is he better then Wallace?"  The answer to that question, no matter what, is YES.

This discussion was covered in glorious, heart-rending depth yesterday in two separate threads.

I'll refer you there.

In brief: Taken in the context of the rest of the off-season moves, it looks like the Celts are moving on in earnest from looking to develop youth and are intent on "winning now while maintaining flexibility."

You're right that whether or not David Lee is a good player doesn't matter that much.  I just think it's worth pointing out to temper some of the surprising enthusiasm I've seen around here about the acquisition.  Enthusiasm based on "David Lee is a good player!" more than it is based on "Danny upgraded an asset!"

[incoherent]

All of these little stats about his bad defense, was well known to Danny, obviously. But we aren't a contender and non contenders getting a 1 year player to help keep our flexibility dont have to worry about these advanced defensive stats at all.

If you are really worried about if David Lee is bad, or good.. (which honestly, it doesnt matter if he is bad or good at all) Then all you have to do is ask yourself, "is he better then Wallace?"  The answer to that question, no matter what, is YES.

This discussion was covered in glorious, heart-rending depth yesterday in two separate threads.

I'll refer you there.

In brief: Taken in the context of the rest of the off-season moves, it looks like the Celts are moving on in earnest from looking to develop youth and are intent on "winning now while maintaining flexibility."

You're right that whether or not David Lee is a good player doesn't matter that much.  I just think it's worth pointing out to temper some of the surprising enthusiasm I've seen around here about the acquisition.  Enthusiasm based on "David Lee is a good player!" more than it is based on "Danny upgraded an asset!"

I agree with you completely.  I think we are both saying the same thing actually!

[PhoSita]

All of these little stats about his bad defense, was well known to Danny, obviously. But we aren't a contender and non contenders getting a 1 year player to help keep our flexibility dont have to worry about these advanced defensive stats at all.

If you are really worried about if David Lee is bad, or good.. (which honestly, it doesnt matter if he is bad or good at all) Then all you have to do is ask yourself, "is he better then Wallace?"  The answer to that question, no matter what, is YES.

This discussion was covered in glorious, heart-rending depth yesterday in two separate threads.

I'll refer you there.

In brief: Taken in the context of the rest of the off-season moves, it looks like the Celts are moving on in earnest from looking to develop youth and are intent on "winning now while maintaining flexibility."

You're right that whether or not David Lee is a good player doesn't matter that much.  I just think it's worth pointing out to temper some of the surprising enthusiasm I've seen around here about the acquisition.  Enthusiasm based on "David Lee is a good player!" more than it is based on "Danny upgraded an asset!"

I agree with you completely.  I think we are both saying the same thing actually!

Heh.  Funny how that happens.