The Best Player on the Bucks?

[europa]

I dare you to start a post on the Spurs forum saying "Who handles Duncan and who does he handle" and list Tabak.

Who does Tim Duncan handle: The league.

Who handles Tim Duncan: Zan Tabak.

You're no fun.

[coolhandluke121]

The comparison holds no water. Kobe is a top 5 player and the Lakers as a team are stacked. You can't just make those parallels across teams and assume all top players on teams are of the same caliber, and also in regards to the levels of supporting cast.

In short, your argument makes little sense.

As usual you have no idea what my argument even is. I'm not comparing Bogut or Jennings to Kobe or Gasol, or comparing the Lakers to the Bucks. It's like you just read those words and put them together however you want to, kind of like you did when I suggested trading for Jared Jeffries or Eddy Curry because the Knicks would likely be willing to give up a young player of real value in the deal. You belittled it as if I was saying I actually wanted Curry or Jeffries on the team, but eventually most intelligent posters saw the logic behind and there are even rumors that the Knicks were considering giving up GallinariI in a deal that would fetch them Sessions and more 2010 cap space. I see a lot of my students do the same thing you do with twisting words - you give them a math problem and they just start doing a bunch of operations that they've learned before, not even realizing that what they're doing is irrelevant. Whether you and they do it on purpose, I have no idea.

The Lakers ups and downs over the years have generally coincided with Odom's severe ups and downs, and most people who have watched them have noticed that. This has nothing to do with whether Odom is their best player or not, it's only because he's so inconsistent. Making that argument in the case of the Lakers would obviously be silly, but the truth is it's just as silly for the Bucks. The people who are basing their argument on that logic would almost have to say that Odom is the best player on the Lakers. The Lakers can count on Kobe; they can't count on Odom and the Bucks can't count on Bogut. Bogut may or may not be their best player, but that has nothing to do with whether they struggle when he plays poorly.

[coolhandluke121]

The comparison holds no water. Kobe is a top 5 player and the Lakers as a team are stacked. You can't just make those parallels across teams and assume all top players on teams are of the same caliber, and also in regards to the levels of supporting cast.

In short, your argument makes little sense.

Dude, it's not a "comparison". It's a simple counterexample. People are saying Bogut is the Bucks best player because they play so much better when he plays well than when he plays poorly. I pointed out that the Lakers, as good as they are, are much better when Odom plays well than when he has Pube games. The analogy works because, like Bogut, Odom is a total enigma who has never come close to living up to his promise. Since Odom is clearly not their best player, this counterexample makes it clear why I don't like the argument some people are using. It's almost like saying Bogut is the team's best player because he plays poorly so often and every time he does it's clear how important he is. Huh? So he's the best player because he plays poorly so often?

[europa]

Bogut's level of importance to the Bucks is significantly greater than Odom's to the Lakers. The analogy holds little water as a result. It's not a question of how the Bucks are impacted if Bogut plays poorly but rather you need to look at how everything about the team is better simply by virtue of Bogut being on the court. Their offensive potential is greater and their defensive potential is significantly greater. He is a vital part of everything that occurs on both ends of the floor for this team.

The same is not the case with Odom. While Odom is a very talented player, he is merely a piece of the puzzle in LA. He is not the central player on that team nor even the No. 2 player on that team (Gasol is). You could argue he's as low as fourth behind Bynum although I personally think Odom's value is the same as Bynum's for a variety of reasons. But the point is the Lakers' game is not fundamentally rooted in Odom or what Odom can do on the court. The Bucks, however, are tied directly to Bogut in many ways because he has the ability to make such a diverse and powerful impact.

[LUKE23]

Bogut's level of importance to the Bucks is significantly greater than Odom's to the Lakers. The analogy holds little water as a result. It's not a question of how the Bucks are impacted if Bogut plays poorly but rather you need to look at how everything about the team is better simply by virtue of Bogut being on the court. Their offensive potential is greater and their defensive potential is significantly greater. He is a vital part of everything that occurs on both ends of the floor for this team.

The same is not the case with Odom. While Odom is a very talented player, he is merely a piece of the puzzle in LA. He is not the central player on that team nor even the No. 2 player on that team (Gasol is). You could argue he's as low as fourth behind Bynum although I personally think Odom's value is the same as Bynum's for a variety of reasons. But the point is the Lakers' game is not fundamentally rooted in Odom or what Odom can do on the court. The Bucks, however, are tied directly to Bogut in many ways because he has the ability to make such a diverse and powerful impact.

Yes.

[coolhandluke121]

Bogut and Jennings are supposed to be a lot better than Ridnour. So far this year, they haven't been.

I think you have to take into account something called the "impact factor" as well. Does Ridnour get double-teamed when he's in the game? Do opposing teams devise tactics specifically against him and make it extremely difficult for him to shoot any uncontested jumper? It's often the case that when a backup becomes a starter, his numbers go down because of the inability to adapt, either temporarily or permanently (the same has been the case with Jennings, who's taken another move - from being a starter to being a potential all-star). That's simply because opposing teams will play such players in a different, more demanding way, exploiting specific weaknesses and putting extra pressure.

Jennings might be better than Bogut (if not now, then perhaps quite soon) because of exactly this capacity of being a star player - one that opposing teams adjust specifically for. True, Jennings has played worse when he's had to play against top PG's and against double teams, but with him, it's a matter of specific factors that he has to overcome (such as being more physical in driving to the basket, not shooting contested jumpers with 12 to go on the shot clock, using dribble penetration to create shots for teammates, distance issues on defense etc.). Recent games actually suggest that he's been learning quickly, although it will take a couple more to determine whether or not it's real development and not a fluke. On the other hand, Bogut seems to have a "turn-me-off" switch - once an opposing team figures how to flip that switch, he's basically as good as gone (there is simply no way an all-star caliber center should put up a game with 8 points and 5 rebounds in 27 minutes). The real problem is that while with Jennings, opposing teams have to put up a consistent effort to keep him from having an impact, with Bogut it sometimes only seems like getting the right person to do the right thing in the first 5 minutes of the game.

BJ wouldn't get double-teamed so much if he knew how to deal with it. Ridnour would make the right play much more often than BJ has. He's not more talented than BJ, but he has been better. I don't see any point in saying what would happen if X or Y happened, or arguing that the "True Ridnour" isn't as good as the one we've soon this year. If I wanted to win one playoff game tomorrow, I'd definitely take Ridnour ahead of BJ. And that's even taking into account the likelihood that Ridnour isn't as good as he's been playing. I'm willing to bet that 95% of coaches would do the same thing, but the Bucks are playing BJ to build for the future.

I'm not so biased against Bogut that I would take Ridnour ahead of him, but if I knew Ridnour would play as well as he has all year then I might consider it. And that's the argument here, that Ridnour has been more consistently effective than Bogut and therefore has been their best player. As Skiles has clearly stated. I'd rather agree with him than 95% of RealGM.

[Newz]

Europa, I don't think coolhand believes that Odom is one of the top two players on the team... He is just using an example of how a player that isn't one of the top guys can significantly impact the performance of a team by being inconsistent.

He's saying that Bogut's performance having a big impact on the team doesn't necessarily make him the best player on the team, all it means is that when your starting center plays bad, the team does bad... When he plays well, the team does well.

I agree with him to a certain extent that Odom playing well and consistent may very well be the difference between them winning and losing the championship... He is a pretty big part of that team.

It would be like saying that the Lakers play significantly better when Derrick Fisher plays great as opposed to when he just plays average/below average and then trying to use that as evidence that he is their most important player.

[Newz]

I have also never seen so many people defend a player by pointing out the fact that he has massive swings in how well he plays.

"Look at how bad we are when he plays like total ****." is kind of the argument being used at times. Wouldn't him playing poorly (pube games as some like to call them) actually be a massive negative towards Bogut, rather than something that you should be trying to use to defend him as the best player on the team?

[europa]

I understand the argument. My point is that what Odom provides the Lakers is a bonus. What Bogut provides the Bucks is essential. Therefore, Bogut's importance to the Bucks in my opinion is significantly greater than Odom's is to the Lakers.

[LUKE23]

I'm not so biased against Bogut that I would take Ridnour ahead of him, but if I knew Ridnour would play as well as he has all year then I might consider it.

I think that comment shows that you are indeed pretty biased against Bogut. Even if Ridnour kept up the ridiculous pace he's on, Bogut's impact is far above his, because Bogut's defensive impact is greater and it's not like Bogut has been a slouch offensively either. I get that you don't like the inconsistency, but you're trying to mold it into an argument that doesn't fit.

[Newz]

I understand the argument. My point is that what Odom provides the Lakers is a bonus. What Bogut provides the Bucks is essential. Therefore, Bogut's importance to the Bucks in my opinion is significantly greater than Odom's is to the Lakers.

I don't think anyone is arguing that Lamar Odom is more important to the Lakers than Bogut is to the Bucks.

The point is that how important a player is to a team doesn't mean that they are the best player on that team... It can mean a number of things.

For instance I think Haywood is probably the most important player for the Wizards, because without him their defense and rebounding suffer significantly... And when one of the scorers (Arenas/Butler/Jamison) is out, they can make up for losing the points in different ways.

I would never argue that Haywood is a better player than Butler and Jamison though, I would only argue that he is more important to their teams success because he brings something to the table (interior defense/rebounding) that no one else on the roster can.

[emunney]

I just don't know if the premise is true. I don't think the Lakers go as Odom goes.

[LUKE23]

I understand the argument. My point is that what Odom provides the Lakers is a bonus. What Bogut provides the Bucks is essential. Therefore, Bogut's importance to the Bucks in my opinion is significantly greater than Odom's is to the Lakers.

That was the point I was trying to make. The Lakers buffer zone is far greater due to having a top 5 player. If Odom doesn't play well, the Lakers can still win ANY GAME they play. They could even lose Odom for the season and still win the title. I just don't agree with the parallels being made.

[europa]

"Look at how bad we are when he plays like total ****." is kind of the argument being used at times. Wouldn't him playing poorly (pube games as some like to call them) actually be a massive negative towards Bogut, rather than something that you should be trying to use to defend him as the best player on the team?

If Bogut's overall level of production was dominated by "pube" games I'd agree. But this season it hasn't been. As I've posted and emmuney has posted even the stars in the league throw up a stinker or two every now and then. Over the course of an 82-game season, it's bound to happen and it's unrealistic in my opinion and unfair to hold Bogut to a standard no player in this league (other than the Kobe's and LeBron's) are likely to meet.

That isn't to say he's exempt from criticism because he isn't. But in my opinion Bogut's good games have far outweighed his bad ones this season (as well as last season and the final 50 games of the year before that). I think he's done a great job in that time span of becoming a more consistent and valuable player to this team.

[Newz]

"Look at how bad we are when he plays like total ****." is kind of the argument being used at times. Wouldn't him playing poorly (pube games as some like to call them) actually be a massive negative towards Bogut, rather than something that you should be trying to use to defend him as the best player on the team?

If Bogut's overall level of production was dominated by "pube" games I'd agree.

I don't care if he has one bad game or twenty bad games during the course of the season, it still doesn't change my argument.

"When our starting center has a bad game, the team plays a lot worse." - Well you could say that about every team in the NBA. The same thing could be said about Brandon Jennings or any of the players who play... When a guy plays well, he is going to have a positive impact on the game, when he plays poorly he is going to have a negative impact.

I agree that Bogut is the most important player on the team, but that is mainly because our depth at the 4/5 positions is absolutely awful. I don't why that would make you vote for him in a thread where someone is asking you who the best player is, though it seems like many people used that argument.

[europa]

I think Bogut is the most important player on this team because of what he brings to the court. That's my argument. The fact the Bucks lack a quality backup C has no bearing on how I'm voting. I didn't downgrade Jennings because Ridnour has been a solid backup PG so far this season.

[LUKE23]

Even if you had comparable level backup to Ridnour at C, the team would suffer the most in the W/L column by losing Bogut over any other player on the team though. If Jennings was an impact defender right now, then you could make a strong case for him, but at this point he isn't.

[coolhandluke121]

I understand the argument. My point is that what Odom provides the Lakers is a bonus. What Bogut provides the Bucks is essential. Therefore, Bogut's importance to the Bucks in my opinion is significantly greater than Odom's is to the Lakers.

But that's just because the Bucks have no other options and are precariously perched at .500 when they could easily slip into the bottom 5 of the league at any moment. Again, I wouldn't call that an argument about how good Bogut is, but if the argument is how important he is then yes. I'm just saying the criteria should not be "how much does it hurt the Bucks when he plays poorly" (that has more to do with his inconsistency than how "good" he actually is) or "how much worse would they be if he wasn't playing" (that has more to do with their utter lack of depth at center and pf). It should be about how good he actually he is, in other words, how badly would the average team want him. He's probably the best on the Bucks, but you can't ignore the games where it looks like he doesn't belong in the NBA. If he was on the Lakers or any other contender, I think they'd be looking to upgrade if possible (just like the Lakers did when they got Gasol and sent Odom to the bench).

[Newz]

I think Bogut is the most important player on this team because of what he brings to the court. That's my argument. The fact the Bucks lack a quality backup C has no bearing on how I'm voting. I didn't downgrade Jennings because Ridnour has been a solid backup PG so far this season.

Okay, but the thread isn't about who the most important player it... It is about who the best player is. How important a player is to a team (Haywood example above) does not necessarily mean that they are the best player.

[LUKE23]

Okay, but the thread isn't about who the most important player it... It is about who the best player is. How important a player is to a team (Haywood example above) does not necessarily mean that they are the best player.

Why are you keeping this argument going though? How many times have people clarified "most talented" and "most valuable". To some they mean the same thing, to some they don't. To me, Jennings is the most talented player on the team, but Bogut is the most valuable.

If I have to clarify it as the best is the player we can least afford to not have, then I'll say Bogut.