Plumlee signs 3-yr $41M

Powder Blue · Post #21 » by **Powder Blue** » Thu Sep 21, 2017 4:18 pm

MidMountain wrote:I'm surprised at the Plumlee hate. His contract is a bit on the rich side, but not drastically so, and I don't see another player that has close to his skillset. People act like he is a talent-less scrub.

It's more than a bit on the rich side...and no one else was going to pony up that much money for him a week before training camp. You don't build a perennial playoff team overpaying guys like Arthur and Plumlee because you think they're nice guys.

HoopsMalone · Post #22 » by **HoopsMalone** » Thu Sep 21, 2017 10:07 pm

Yuck. A really curious misstep from a GM that hadn't made any so far. This is him doubling down on his trade mistake from last year.

Worried how this may affect the nuggets ability to build around jokic . This one makes no sense. Puke.

Sent from my SM-N920V using RealGM mobile app

U hova · Post #23 » by **U hova** » Fri Sep 22, 2017 2:05 am

The Rebel wrote:Barton needs to quit thinking then.

I think he's three steps ahead of you.

MidMountain · Post #24 » by **MidMountain** » Fri Sep 22, 2017 6:18 pm

The Rebel wrote:You can disagree all you want, but the stats back up that Faried is better at center and it is not even close. The Nuggets were -0.1 in the center matchups with Faried, and -5.9 with Plumlee.

I don't have access to Faried's stats when we played center specifically, but all the overall advanced metrics favor Plumlee to Faried overall, particularly if you look at the whole season. Take box plus minus for '16-'17 (Plumlee 1.5 with Denver & 2.7 overall, Faried 0.8). Value over replacement (Plumlee 2.5, Faried 0.9) These stats suggests that Plumlee is the better overall player. Perhaps Faried's stats at C are way better than at PF, but I doubt it based upon what I saw.

MidMountain · Post #25 » by **MidMountain** » Fri Sep 22, 2017 6:32 pm

For those of you unfamiliar with BPM and VORP: https://www.basketball-reference.com/about/bpm.html

MidMountain · Post #26 » by **MidMountain** » Fri Sep 22, 2017 6:53 pm

Powder Blue wrote:
MidMountain wrote:I'm surprised at the Plumlee hate. His contract is a bit on the rich side, but not drastically so, and I don't see another player that has close to his skillset. People act like he is a talent-less scrub.

It's more than a bit on the rich side...and no one else was going to pony up that much money for him a week before training camp. You don't build a perennial playoff team overpaying guys like Arthur and Plumlee because you think they're nice guys.

It is unlikely he would have gotten a better contract this year, but what about next year?
The contract reminds me of Faried's. It's about right given the player's talent level (marginal starter) but is a bit high to pay for a backup. It is comparable to the 4/$50 that Olynyk got. Olynyk is a better shooter, but Plumlee is a better passer.

Post #27 » by **The Rebel** » Sat Sep 23, 2017 1:37 pm

MidMountain wrote:
The Rebel wrote:You can disagree all you want, but the stats back up that Faried is better at center and it is not even close. The Nuggets were -0.1 in the center matchups with Faried, and -5.9 with Plumlee.

I don't have access to Faried's stats when we played center specifically, but all the overall advanced metrics favor Plumlee to Faried overall, particularly if you look at the whole season. Take box plus minus for '16-'17 (Plumlee 1.5 with Denver & 2.7 overall, Faried 0.8). Value over replacement (Plumlee 2.5, Faried 0.9) These stats suggests that Plumlee is the better overall player. Perhaps Faried's stats at C are way better than at PF, but I doubt it based upon what I saw.

Here is where I got my information, about half way down the page for net production per 48 minutes
http://www.82games.com/1617/16DEN18.HTM
http://www.82games.com/1617/16DEN12.HTM

Now the thing BPM and VORP is that they are an estimate based on box scores and overall team performance, they are not an indicator of how a guy performs in certain situations.

Post #28 » by **NuggetsWY** » Sun Sep 24, 2017 12:33 am

Portland plays a guard oriented offense. By the time Plumlee arrived here, Denver played a center oriented offense (mostly). Having Plumlee here for training camp might make him a better fit for Denver - that and having Millsap plus too many other PFs might keep him focused on backup center and that might make him a better fit as well.

Worst case, he's a backup center that is a great lockerroom/teammate/personality type guy.

MidMountain · Post #29 » by **MidMountain** » Mon Sep 25, 2017 6:30 pm

The Rebel wrote:
MidMountain wrote:
The Rebel wrote:You can disagree all you want, but the stats back up that Faried is better at center and it is not even close. The Nuggets were -0.1 in the center matchups with Faried, and -5.9 with Plumlee.

I don't have access to Faried's stats when we played center specifically, but all the overall advanced metrics favor Plumlee to Faried overall, particularly if you look at the whole season. Take box plus minus for '16-'17 (Plumlee 1.5 with Denver & 2.7 overall, Faried 0.8). Value over replacement (Plumlee 2.5, Faried 0.9) These stats suggests that Plumlee is the better overall player. Perhaps Faried's stats at C are way better than at PF, but I doubt it based upon what I saw.

Here is where I got my information, about half way down the page for net production per 48 minutes
http://www.82games.com/1617/16DEN18.HTM
http://www.82games.com/1617/16DEN12.HTM

Now the thing BPM and VORP is that they are an estimate based on box scores and overall team performance, they are not an indicator of how a guy performs in certain situations.

Thanks for the links. It's hard to effectively measure a player's contribution in isolation of the rest of the team. Jokic's netPER is only one measure of his contribution. I'd argue that his net48 +/- is a more accurate reflection of his contribution to the team. Jokic had a +7 PER in his PF matchups, yet the team was a net48 -7.3 in his PF minutes (for his center minutes: PER +5.3, net48 +3.1). One metric (netPER) suggests Jokic was better at PF, the other (net48) says the team was better when he was at C. Faried's net48 +/- at center was -9.5, Plumlee was -1.5. Some statistics point to Faried, some to Plumlee. The point is not say one stat is better than the other, since both have caveats and context/situation plays a large role in the calculation. However, the statistical case for Faried over Plumlee is mixed at best.

Mickey8 · Post #30 » by **Mickey8** » Mon Sep 25, 2017 10:18 pm

This is horrible contract for the back up center.

skywalker33 · Post #31 » by **skywalker33** » Mon Sep 25, 2017 10:46 pm

Mickey8 wrote:This is horrible contract for the back up center.

Post #32 » by **NuggetsWY** » Mon Sep 25, 2017 11:07 pm

skywalker33 wrote:
Mickey8 wrote:This is horrible contract for the back up center.

Awww, come on, it's a great contract --- for Plumlee! :lol:

If'n I look at things correctly, he's now the second highest paid Denver Nugget. That must mean he's our second best player - right?

skywalker33 · Post #33 » by **skywalker33** » Fri Oct 6, 2017 4:57 pm

Plumlee looking good in preseason so far, does his play somewhat justify his contract ?

Powder Blue · Post #34 » by **Powder Blue** » Fri Oct 6, 2017 5:43 pm

skywalker33 wrote:Plumlee looking good in preseason so far, does his play somewhat justify his contract ?

A solid pre-season doesn't justify the 3/$41 to me....but he's on the right track.

Alatan · Post #35 » by **Alatan** » Fri Oct 6, 2017 6:05 pm

Powder Blue wrote:
skywalker33 wrote:Plumlee looking good in preseason so far, does his play somewhat justify his contract ?

A solid pre-season doesn't justify the 3/$41 to me....but he's on the right track.

If he doesnt start shooting or defending the rim then no...

skywalker33 · Post #36 » by **skywalker33** » Fri Oct 6, 2017 8:48 pm

Alatan wrote:
Powder Blue wrote:
skywalker33 wrote:Plumlee looking good in preseason so far, does his play somewhat justify his contract ?

A solid pre-season doesn't justify the 3/$41 to me....but he's on the right track.

If he doesnt start shooting or defending the rim then no...

Wow, he’s averaging 11/7.5 in 21mins a game so far in 3 games, not bad for a backup

Alatan · Post #37 » by **Alatan** » Fri Oct 6, 2017 8:52 pm

skywalker33 wrote:
Alatan wrote:
Powder Blue wrote:

A solid pre-season doesn't justify the 3/$41 to me....but he's on the right track.

If he doesnt start shooting or defending the rim then no...

Wow, he’s averaging 11/7.5 in 21mins a game so far in 3 games, not bad for a backup

Well thats close to what he averages anyway and considering he was playing the Lakers its actually not a good thing...

skywalker33 · Post #38 » by **skywalker33** » Fri Oct 6, 2017 9:15 pm

Alatan wrote:
skywalker33 wrote:
Alatan wrote:
If he doesnt start shooting or defending the rim then no...

Wow, he’s averaging 11/7.5 in 21mins a game so far in 3 games, not bad for a backup

Well thats close to what he averages anyway and considering he was playing the Lakers its actually not a good thing...

That Lakers point I get, especially considering both Lopez and Bogut we’re out but he has been playing well IMO

Alatan · Post #39 » by **Alatan** » Fri Oct 6, 2017 9:38 pm

skywalker33 wrote:
Alatan wrote:
skywalker33 wrote:
Wow, he’s averaging 11/7.5 in 21mins a game so far in 3 games, not bad for a backup

Well thats close to what he averages anyway and considering he was playing the Lakers its actually not a good thing...

That Lakers point I get, especially considering both Lopez and Bogut we’re out but he has been playing well IMO

He was playing well its just that i think that 13 million a year is too much for a backup center with a weird set of skills.

I know that we picked him up because he is a good passer to replace Jokic of the bench but IMO his and Jokic's playmaking are not the same type. A guy like Pau Gasol is a closer comparison to Jokic as a playmaker but is much older and we would overpay him as well.

It's not that much of big deal he is a productive player. I dont mind getting him its just that we overpaid for it. He did show some improvement at creating his shot but not enough to get me excited.

skywalker33 · Post #40 » by **skywalker33** » Fri Oct 6, 2017 10:00 pm

Alatan wrote:
skywalker33 wrote:
Alatan wrote:
Well thats close to what he averages anyway and considering he was playing the Lakers its actually not a good thing...

That Lakers point I get, especially considering both Lopez and Bogut we’re out but he has been playing well IMO

He was playing well its just that i think that 13 million a year is too much for a backup center with a weird set of skills.

I know that we picked him up because he is a good passer to replace Jokic of the bench but IMO his and Jokic's playmaking are not the same type. A guy like Pau Gasol is a closer comparison to Jokic as a playmaker but is much older and we would overpay him as well.

It's not that much of big deal he is a productive player. I dont mind getting him its just that we overpaid for it. He did show some improvement at creating his shot but not enough to get me excited.

Know you’re a Gasol guy but I disagree he’s closer in skill set than Plumlee is right now, maybe 6 years ago but Plumlee is one of the top 6 best passing bigs in the game today. Gasol is/ has been a better playmaker no doubt but he is also at the end of his career, Plumlee is entering his prime. I agree we did overpay, but based upon his production, chemistry he brings and team locker room guy I don’t see it as such the huge disparity many make of it.