Hornets waive Mensah-Bonsu

[BC867]

Power Forward Pops Mensah-Bonsu, 6'9" - 240 was just waived by the Hornets.

In the 2008-09 season, he played in 22 games averaging 12 minutes per game.

In those games, he averaged 5.1 rebounds per game. In twelve minutes per game of playing time. That's over 10 boards in 24 minutes -- half a game.

Here's the best part. Of his total 113 rebounds, almost half (55) were at the offensive end. 58 were defensive.

Does anyone know of an NBA team desperate for a Power Forward who can help lift them out of last place in rebounding and take some pressure off our Centers?

Here's a hint. There's an "un" between the "s"'s. That's "un" for unrebounding.

 

[AzStevenCal]

Power Forward Pops Mensah-Bonsu, 6'9" - 240 was just waived by the Hornets.

In the 2008-09 season, he played in 22 games averaging 12 minutes per game.

In those games, he averaged 5.1 rebounds per game. In twelve minutes per game of playing time. That's over 10 boards in 24 minutes -- half a game.

Here's the best part. Of his total 113 rebounds, almost half (55) were at the offensive end. 58 were defensive.

Does anyone know of an NBA team desperate for a Power Forward who can help lift them out of last place in rebounding and take some pressure off our Centers?

Here's a hint. There's an "un" between the "s"'s. That's "un" for unrebounding.

There's another "un" and it's "unlikely". Unlikely that he'd get any playing time and even if he did, unlikely he'd help us win a game. They don't award wins based on the number of rebounds. I don't know much about him at the pro level but there's a lot more to the game than just rebounds and guys typically get cut in the middle of the season because they can't play, not because they can.

We need a decent rebounder that can actually play the game. We need to move some pieces for a power forward or (my preference) move some pieces for the future. If we were to move Nash and Carter at the deadline I'd be all for trying to play a controlled offense and an aggressive defense. At that point, someone like Mensah might make a little sense.

Steve

 

[Chaplin]

Power Forward Pops Mensah-Bonsu, 6'9" - 240 was just waived by the Hornets.

In the 2008-09 season, he played in 22 games averaging 12 minutes per game.

In those games, he averaged 5.1 rebounds per game. In twelve minutes per game of playing time. That's over 10 boards in 24 minutes -- half a game.

Here's the best part. Of his total 113 rebounds, almost half (55) were at the offensive end. 58 were defensive.

Does anyone know of an NBA team desperate for a Power Forward who can help lift them out of last place in rebounding and take some pressure off our Centers?

Here's a hint. There's an "un" between the "s"'s. That's "un" for unrebounding.

Earl Barron, Part 2. If an average team waives the guy, what makes you think he'd do any good for us?? Amazing how you are willing to just bring anyone in if he's taller than 6'10" and has high per-48 rebounding statistics. No matter that he's barely played in the NBA.

Hilarious that you think this scrub will "help lift them out of last place in rebounding".

 

[Trifecta]

In those games, he averaged 5.1 rebounds per game. In twelve minutes per game of playing time. That's over 10 boards in 24 minutes -- half a game.

Wow that must mean he could average 15 boards if he played starters minutes. Move over Kevin Love

 

[Covert Rain]

In the 2008-09 season, he played in 22 games averaging 12 minutes per game.

In those games, he averaged 5.1 rebounds per game. In twelve minutes per game of playing time. That's over 10 boards in 24 minutes -- half a game.

Well.....that sounds good in theory but it doesn't work out that way. If that was the case then Lopez wouldn't get his 4 rebounds and grab blanks for the rest of the game regardless of his minutes.

 

[JCSunsfan]

5 teams in 5 years (Toronto twice). He is a player that seems to really intrigue wherever he goes but is never able to stick.

Power player, good rebounder, what's the problem. There is one and it is significant. Anyone know?

 

[jagu]

It's nice to know that there was a player named Mensah Bonsu in the NBA. Mensah means "three" and Bonsu means "whale". I think Mensah would fit right in with that name considering that we have more three's than anyone in the NBA and we are going to need a whale of a climb to get to a playoff spot with the spotty defense we put out on a nightly basis.

 

[BC867]

I meant in terms of a Power Forward who could take pressure off Lopez or Gortat, helping them improve rebounding and defense in the paint?

When one becomes available, shouldn't he be considered, especially with his skill in offensive rebounds?

 

[Chaplin]

I meant in terms of a Power Forward who could take pressure off Lopez or Gortat, helping them improve rebounding and defense in the paint?

When one becomes available, shouldn't he be considered, especially with his skill in offensive rebounds?

In garbage time. Against other garbage time players. What makes you think he would take any pressure off of Lopez or Gortat, except in practice?

 

[elindholm]

Why target offensive rebounds over defensive ones? The Suns aren't a good offensive rebounding team, but that isn't why they're losing. They're losing because the opponent scores on nearly every possession, whether or not the Suns force an initial miss or two.

 

[asudevil83]

In garbage time. Against other garbage time players. What makes you think he would take any pressure off of Lopez or Gortat, except in practice?

Thank You.

He was released from an average team for a reason. he's a scrub.

He's Dwayne Jones, Jarron Collins, Earl Barron, Stromile Swift. Looks good on paper, but in all reality arent worth the measly contract and time on the floor.

how many times has a guy been picked up off waivers, played MEANINGFUL minutes, and actually been productive? it rarely happens.

Hornets would rather have Jason Smith, Mbenga, David Anderson, and Aaron Gray over him.....and all those guys are just as terrible

 

[Suns_fan69]

There was a guy last year who averaged 4.4! offensive rebounds a game last year, 6.6 def rebounds in 33 minutes for a solid 15.9 rebounds / 48 minutes.

We should definitely sign him!

Can someone check to see what Earl Barron is up to?

 

[Errntknght]

There was a guy last year who averaged 4.4! offensive rebounds a game last year, 6.6 def rebounds in 33 minutes for a solid 15.9 rebounds / 48 minutes.

We should definitely sign him!

Can someone check to see what Earl Barron is up to?

Oddly enough Earl Barron this year is not too far from his career average rebounding measured per 48 minutes. If you'll remember, when he was first being talked about on here I said that since his stint with Knicks was so far from his average rebounding, measured per 48 minutes, (and in a narrow window) that it was very likely a fluke.

It is a fine stat, and you'll find that it is quite consistent from year to year for a player, much more so than rebounds per game. It can be used, for example, to find out the effect that a player's position (C, PF etc) has on his rebounding. Rb/game can too, but it takes a much larger sample size because of the larger variance.

Personally, I use per 40 stats because they are not so far removed from the minutes a player might play and they are somewhat standard, too. Per 36 would be better but you never find them reported. I approximate that by using per 40 and mentally discounting them 10%.

Now individual +/- is a difficult stat because it is so dependent on the game context in which is is earned. The stat originated in hockey measuring 'lines' rather than individuals. 'Lines' are lineups but in hockey the lines are much more stable than basketball lineups so the +/- of a line is taken over quite a wide base of minutes. Would you believe that Gortat was used in 15 different lineups in his first two games?

 

[Magnus]

Oddly enough Earl Barron this year is not too far from his career average rebounding measured per 48 minutes. If you'll remember, when he was first being talked about on here I said that since his stint with Knicks was so far from his average rebounding, measured per 48 minutes, (and in a narrow window) that it was very likely a fluke.

It is a fine stat, and you'll find that it is quite consistent from year to year for a player, much more so than rebounds per game. It can be used, for example, to find out the effect that a player's position (C, PF etc) has on his rebounding. Rb/game can too, but it takes a much larger sample size because of the larger variance.

Personally, I use per 40 stats because they are not so far removed from the minutes a player might play and they are somewhat standard, too. Per 36 would be better but you never find them reported. I approximate that by using per 40 and mentally discounting them 10%.

Now individual +/- is a difficult stat because it is so dependent on the game context in which is is earned. The stat originated in hockey measuring 'lines' rather than individuals. 'Lines' are lineups but in hockey the lines are much more stable than basketball lineups so the +/- of a line is taken over quite a wide base of minutes. Would you believe that Gortat was used in 15 different lineups in his first two games?

I don't mean to be rude, but I fail to understand why so many people around here are so obsessed with stats. Don't you all know that, quote: ''Statistics is an accurate database of inaccurate data'' ... It can make a bad player look good on paper. The best way to see who plays good is to watch the game.

 

[AzStevenCal]

I don't mean to be rude, but I fail to understand why so many people around here are so obsessed with stats. Don't you all know that, quote: ''Statistics is an accurate database of inaccurate data'' ... It can make a bad player look good on paper. The best way to see who plays good is to watch the game.

Quite true.

Steve

 

[Covert Rain]

Personally, I use per 40 stats because they are not so far removed from the minutes a player might play and they are somewhat standard, too. Per 36 would be better but you never find them reported. I approximate that by using per 40 and mentally discounting them 10%.

That doesn't really matter. Because PER 48 or Per 36 stats are based on court time regardless of which game or games they came from. So, you could have Per 48 or Per 36 that span for instance multiple games. So, they are both decent indications of court time regardless (unless your a garbage time player). Like any other stat though you can't just look at PER alone or +/- alone. Stats are only an indication and when mirrored with actually watching a guy play you can tell if he sucks or not.

 

[Chaplin]

Funny thing is, per 48 or per 36 are usually always better than average for garbage time players. So it makes them look better than they really are.

 

[Covert Rain]

Funny thing is, per 48 or per 36 are usually always better than average for garbage time players. So it makes them look better than they really are.

Exactly. That's why I said mentioned except for garbage time players. There stats always look better if they grab for instance one rebound in 3 minutes of play.

 

[Errntknght]

Funny thing is, per 48 or per 36 are usually always better than average for garbage time players. So it makes them look better than they really are.

I've heard this said many times and you'd expect there to be some truth to it since the competition figures to be weaker in garbage time. On the other hand I recently checked reb/40 min for the careers of about a dozen players and for all but one of them their reb/40 increased or held constant with more playing time. The exception was Marcin Gortat - a possible explanation is that as he played more minutes he was competing more frequently against Dwight Howard. Or he could be getting lazier. Or, of course, we're seeing the famous GT effect.

Chap, why don't you gather some information that backs up your often used comment about per48 stats for garbage time players? Should be easy for you with your vast knowledge of the game. Okay, maybe its not vast but it should be half-vast.


DarenG, I couldn't make sense of your comments - it seemed like you might be confusing per 48 stats with PER rating. Maybe I should have been careful to say 'per 48 minute' stats. I suppose its possible you were trying to straighten me out on the meaning of stats. I do know that per48 minute (or whatever time unit) convey the same information scaled differently for each unit - the reason one might prefer per36 minute stats is that they are closer to the per game numbers we see all the time so ones intuition deals with them more readily.

For everyone that was suggesting I watch games instead of check stats, I agree with you - watching games is best, and the most fun. Typically, I use stats when it is not possible for me to watch the games of interest - like Barron's games with the Knicks. Or I want to compare players on teams other than the Suns. I might stoop to using stats in an argument - if someone were to say that Dragic is shooting threes better this year than last year, I'd have no qualms about pointing out that his 3pt pctg last year was higher than this year. Of course, I might find out what he meant was Goran was shooting them better in the sense that arc of the ball's flight was more aesthetically pleasing, and had nothing to do with the pctg of shots made. Such a person would have a leg up on the rest of us should the league start awarding points for artistic merit. (The league has started in this direction with refs giving more and more points for acting.)

 

[Covert Rain]

DarenG, I couldn't make sense of your comments - it seemed like you might be confusing per 48 stats with PER rating. Maybe I should have been careful to say 'per 48 minute' stats. I suppose its possible you were trying to straighten me out on the meaning of stats. I do know that per48 minute (or whatever time unit) convey the same information scaled differently for each unit - the reason one might prefer per36 minute stats is that they are closer to the per game numbers we see all the time so ones intuition deals with them more readily.

PER 48 or PER 36 just means for every increment of 48 or 36 minutes that person is on the court. It does not equate to a PER GAME stat which is what I think most people interpret it as. So, what I meant was that those minutes could span multiple games if for instance I played 25 minutes one night, play 25 the next night...only the first 25 of night one and the next 16 minutes of night 2 (if your using PER 36) count. The rest of the minutes go towards the next increment of 36.

Another example would be if I play 38 minutes tonight, 2 minutes of that time won't count towards my increment of 36. It would be counted on my next increment of 36 minutes. It can compound and get crazy to try and equate PER 36 or PER 48 to a PER GAME basis. When you account quality minutes versus starter minutes etc...it doesn't paint an accurate PER game picture.

Statistically it's been proven that a player’s per minute production stays fairly consistent when minutes are increased or decreased. So looking at it PER 36 or PER 48 might fluctuate short term but long term over the course of the season it is fairly consistent.

That's why you have to look at PER GAME stats completely separate from PER 36 or PER 48. People try and correlate PER 36 or PER 48 based on a players minutes per game which just doesn't work. PER 48 is popular because 48 minutes equate to an NBA game and if you know his per minute production you could make some projections about what a player does over 82 games. It makes the math easier.

 

[Chaplin]

I've heard this said many times and you'd expect there to be some truth to it since the competition figures to be weaker in garbage time. On the other hand I recently checked reb/40 min for the careers of about a dozen players and for all but one of them their reb/40 increased or held constant with more playing time. The exception was Marcin Gortat - a possible explanation is that as he played more minutes he was competing more frequently against Dwight Howard. Or he could be getting lazier. Or, of course, we're seeing the famous GT effect.

Chap, why don't you gather some information that backs up your often used comment about per48 stats for garbage time players? Should be easy for you with your vast knowledge of the game. Okay, maybe its not vast but it should be half-vast.


DarenG, I couldn't make sense of your comments - it seemed like you might be confusing per 48 stats with PER rating. Maybe I should have been careful to say 'per 48 minute' stats. I suppose its possible you were trying to straighten me out on the meaning of stats. I do know that per48 minute (or whatever time unit) convey the same information scaled differently for each unit - the reason one might prefer per36 minute stats is that they are closer to the per game numbers we see all the time so ones intuition deals with them more readily.

For everyone that was suggesting I watch games instead of check stats, I agree with you - watching games is best, and the most fun. Typically, I use stats when it is not possible for me to watch the games of interest - like Barron's games with the Knicks. Or I want to compare players on teams other than the Suns. I might stoop to using stats in an argument - if someone were to say that Dragic is shooting threes better this year than last year, I'd have no qualms about pointing out that his 3pt pctg last year was higher than this year. Of course, I might find out what he meant was Goran was shooting them better in the sense that arc of the ball's flight was more aesthetically pleasing, and had nothing to do with the pctg of shots made. Such a person would have a leg up on the rest of us should the league start awarding points for artistic merit. (The league has started in this direction with refs giving more and more points for acting.)

I know you don't play fantasy basketball, but there is a league that we've been running in for years now on sports.ws, and a lot of their statistics are based on points per minute (they use minutes per game for scoring not games like Yahoo). Granted, they usually use a total point system, meaning totalling up all statistics and creating a fantasy points per minute statistic, but the ratio still is close. And you see it a lot, guys that play in garbage time in a few games always have a pretty high points per minute ranking, while guys like Lebron James, for example, do not. The trade-off is that since James plays so many minutes, his points actually add up--the garbage players do not, and so even with their high points per minute statistic, they're useless. The best players in this system are those with both high fantasy points per minute and per game as a whole. Those garbage time players just don't have a high per game total.

So a guy like Marcus Camby is a valuable player because he gets both highs in ppm and ppg. But a player like Mensah-Bonsu is not a good player because even though he might have a high ppm, his ppg is horribly bad.

 

[Bufalay]

PER 48 or PER 36 just means for every increment of 48 or 36 minutes that person is on the court. It does not equate to a PER GAME stat which is what I think most people interpret it as. So, what I meant was that those minutes could span multiple games if for instance I played 25 minutes one night, play 25 the next night...only the first 25 of night one and the next 16 minutes of night 2 (if your using PER 36) count. The rest of the minutes go towards the next increment of 36.

Another example would be if I play 38 minutes tonight, 2 minutes of that time won't count towards my increment of 36. It would be counted on my next increment of 36 minutes. It can compound and get crazy to try and equate PER 36 or PER 48 to a PER GAME basis. When you account quality minutes versus starter minutes etc...it doesn't paint an accurate PER game picture.

Statistically it's been proven that a player’s per minute production stays fairly consistent when minutes are increased or decreased. So looking at it PER 36 or PER 48 might fluctuate short term but long term over the course of the season it is fairly consistent.

That's why you have to look at PER GAME stats completely separate from PER 36 or PER 48. People try and correlate PER 36 or PER 48 based on a players minutes per game which just doesn't work. PER 48 is popular because 48 minutes equate to an NBA game and if you know his per minute production you could make some projections about what a player does over 82 games. It makes the math easier.

Why do you put the word "per" in all caps? You're confusing me. I'm not sure why you're talking about increments either. When calculating rebounds per 48 minutes you divide the total number of rebounds the player has for the season by the total number of minutes he/she has played that season and multiply by 48. You could calculate per 48 minute stats for a player who has played only 10 seconds all season so there is really no need to consider these increments of which you speak. Rebounds per 48 minutes, per 36 minutes, per 69 minutes, per 500 years and rebound rate all convey the same information.

 

[Suns_fan69]

I think he's doing it as a point of emphasis, not referring to the other connotation of PER.

PER = Player Efficiency Rating

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Player_Efficiency_Rating

 

[Covert Rain]

I think he's doing it as a point of emphasis, not referring to the other connotation of PER.

PER = Player Efficiency Rating

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Player_Efficiency_Rating

Correct. And usually on the sites they capitalize PER before 36 or 48.

Why do you put the word "per" in all caps? You're confusing me. I'm not sure why you're talking about increments either. When calculating rebounds per 48 minutes you divide the total number of rebounds the player has for the season by the total number of minutes he/she has played that season and multiply by 48. You could calculate per 48 minute stats for a player who has played only 10 seconds all season so there is really no need to consider these increments of which you speak. Rebounds per 48 minutes, per 36 minutes, per 69 minutes, per 500 years and rebound rate all convey the same information.

Sorry I should have been more clear. I was trying to expand on the previous post and explain why it doesn't equate to a full game or equate to stats on a PER game basis. Now that I re-read that it is confusing. I probably shouldn't have gone there. I was trying to relay the concept of for every 48 minutes or 36 minutes of play your dividing by the total regardless if the minutes took place over one or multiple games.

The stats simply equate to a per minute and not a full game necessarily regardless of using Per 36 or Per 48 stats.

 

[Errntknght]

PER 48 or PER 36 just means for every increment of 48 or 36 minutes that person is on the court. It does not equate to a PER GAME stat which is what I think most people interpret it as. So, what I meant was that those minutes could span multiple games if for instance I played 25 minutes one night, play 25 the next night...only the first 25 of night one and the next 16 minutes of night 2 (if your using PER 36) count. The rest of the minutes go towards the next increment of 36.

Another example would be if I play 38 minutes tonight, 2 minutes of that time won't count towards my increment of 36. It would be counted on my next increment of 36 minutes. It can compound and get crazy to try and equate PER 36 or PER 48 to a PER GAME basis. When you account quality minutes versus starter minutes etc...it doesn't paint an accurate PER game picture.

Statistically it's been proven that a player’s per minute production stays fairly consistent when minutes are increased or decreased. So looking at it PER 36 or PER 48 might fluctuate short term but long term over the course of the season it is fairly consistent.

That's why you have to look at PER GAME stats completely separate from PER 36 or PER 48. People try and correlate PER 36 or PER 48 based on a players minutes per game which just doesn't work. PER 48 is popular because 48 minutes equate to an NBA game and if you know his per minute production you could make some projections about what a player does over 82 games. It makes the math easier.

Wow, now I see why you don't like per time unit stats... trying to put minutes from various games into blocks of 48 or whatever.

The bold part is quite wrong. You can use minutes per game and, for example, reb per 48 min, to compute reb per game exactly. Just multiply 'reb per 48' times 'minutes per game' and divide by 48. Actually try it once and you'll see for yourself. Using minutes per game, you can easily move back and forth between per 48/40/36 stats and per game stats.

I wonder if this is Chaplin's problem too. He talks about high per48 stats and terrible per game stats. There's nothing 'terrible' about them, they are exactly what you expect given the guy's minutes played per game. At least they are what you should expect... expecting anything else being rather silly.