PHI - SAC (Paul George to SAC)

[jayjaysee]

Looking at just a LaVine/PG deal, as Demar adds too much salary..

Zach to a third team
Bad/smaller salary to Philly
PG and asset to Sac

Feels like a reasonable deal to me at least. Sac could still end up pivoting to a rebuild or could hope PG bounces back a bit next season. Philly could add some value mixed with some from the third team?

Think Philly will be wanting to feature Maxey/McCain and not be interested in LaVine if they can help it.

[bpcox05]

I haven't liked a lot of your trades, but this is literally the worst ever posted

Zach has been scoring at Curry level efficiencies coming into his prime

deRozan is a tale of underrated salary to George who no one wants

George is just old and no longer producing

Yet LaVine isn’t impactful as Curry. Why do you think that is? It’s almost like there is more to winning than just putting the ball through the hoop. I would like to think we can have an honest conversation on a players impact without being hyperbolic.

I agree with the other posters that incentive would need to be added on Philly’s end to make the trade feasible for the Kings, and I like the other iteration of keeping DeRozan in SAC and just sending out LaVine for George (as that gives PHI some more space to work with under the 1st apron).

One thing is glaringly obvious though. We’re not going anywhere when our starting PG, SG, and SF are all below average defenders. Especially when your C is not a defensive presence/anchor to erase defensive mistakes. We’re terribly unbalanced as a team and although George doesn’t appear to be the same level of scorer he was, he’s still a very impactful defender with great size & length. There’s no question in my mind that a lineup of Monk, Ellis, George, Murray, and Sabonis would be more impactful than Monk, LaVine, DeRozan, Murray, & Sabonis. And we’d still have DeRozan as our super 6th man who could also start for George if he’s out with an injury (as well as adding another pick to our “war chest”).

LaVine will play SF

He played SF/PF most of this year in chi

Allowing Keon to start

Demar will be 6th man

And the Kings targeted Zach because he’s good

Considering how cheap it was to acquire LaVine, why didn’t any other teams target LaVine if he’s so good?

As for LaVine playing SF, we don’t want that. He’s got average size/length for the SG spot (8’4” standing reach and 6’8.25” wingspan) but playing him at SF immediately makes us more undersized (especially since Sabonis doesn’t have good size/length at C). He can swing up to SF for stretches during the game but we don’t him starting and closing games at SF. That’s not going to be a recipe for success.

And this is where the main issue lies…we basically have the perfect 2-way, role playing starter in Keon Ellis at SG but we swapped our “star” PG (who was a terrific fit next to Ellis) for a “star” SG that essentially blocks Ellis. So that leaves us with these options…

1.) Start Ellis and Lavine at PG and SG (not ideal offensively as we don’t have a PG on the floor and you’d be forcing LaVine into more of an initiator role which is not the best way to utilize him)
2.) Start Ellis and LaVine at SG and SF (now you’re willingly starting with a small lineup that can be exploited by teams)
3.) Start Ellis at SG and bench LaVine (LaVine is a starting caliber player who now is coming off the bench. Not to mention that’s a lot of money to tie up into someone coming off the bench/not closing out games).
4.) Start LaVine at SG and bench Ellis (not ideal as Ellis’ defense is ideally utilized on the opposing teams best offensive players, and he is far from a zero on offense which means he’s an excellent player to have in the game when it’s crunch time).

No matter what option we choose, there is a downside. This downside didn’t exist when we still had Fox on the roster, and we could project the fit and impact of a Fox/Ellis backcourt. You still have the scoring that LaVine brings and the defense Ellis brings, but the PG play is what is missing and Fox checked that box.

[BoogieTime]

Yet LaVine isn’t impactful as Curry. Why do you think that is? It’s almost like there is more to winning than just putting the ball through the hoop. I would like to think we can have an honest conversation on a players impact without being hyperbolic.

I agree with the other posters that incentive would need to be added on Philly’s end to make the trade feasible for the Kings, and I like the other iteration of keeping DeRozan in SAC and just sending out LaVine for George (as that gives PHI some more space to work with under the 1st apron).

One thing is glaringly obvious though. We’re not going anywhere when our starting PG, SG, and SF are all below average defenders. Especially when your C is not a defensive presence/anchor to erase defensive mistakes. We’re terribly unbalanced as a team and although George doesn’t appear to be the same level of scorer he was, he’s still a very impactful defender with great size & length. There’s no question in my mind that a lineup of Monk, Ellis, George, Murray, and Sabonis would be more impactful than Monk, LaVine, DeRozan, Murray, & Sabonis. And we’d still have DeRozan as our super 6th man who could also start for George if he’s out with an injury (as well as adding another pick to our “war chest”).

LaVine will play SF

He played SF/PF most of this year in chi

Allowing Keon to start

Demar will be 6th man

And the Kings targeted Zach because he’s good

Considering how cheap it was to acquire LaVine, why didn’t any other teams target LaVine if he’s so good?

As for LaVine playing SF, we don’t want that. He’s got average size/length for the SG spot (8’4” standing reach and 6’8.25” wingspan) but playing him at SF immediately makes us more undersized (especially since Sabonis doesn’t have good size/length at C). He can swing up to SF for stretches during the game but we don’t him starting and closing games at SF. That’s not going to be a recipe for success.

And this is where the main issue lies…we basically have the perfect 2-way, role playing starter in Keon Ellis at SG but we swapped our “star” PG (who was a terrific fit next to Ellis) for a “star” SG that essentially blocks Ellis. So that leaves us with these options…

1.) Start Ellis and Lavine at PG and SG (not ideal offensively as we don’t have a PG on the floor and you’d be forcing LaVine into more of an initiator role which is not the best way to utilize him)
2.) Start Ellis and LaVine at SG and SF (now you’re willingly starting with a small lineup that can be exploited by teams)
3.) Start Ellis at SG and bench LaVine (LaVine is a starting caliber player who now is coming off the bench. Not to mention that’s a lot of money to tie up into someone coming off the bench/not closing out games).
4.) Start LaVine at SG and bench Ellis (not ideal as Ellis’ defense is ideally utilized on the opposing teams best offensive players, and he is far from a zero on offense which means he’s an excellent player to have in the game when it’s crunch time).

No matter what option we choose, there is a downside. This downside didn’t exist when we still had Fox on the roster, and we could project the fit and impact of a Fox/Ellis backcourt. You still have the scoring that LaVine brings and the defense Ellis brings, but the PG play is what is missing and Fox checked that box.

He was playing 78% of his minutes this year in Chi at SF and PF I believe... He's not necessarily a good defender at SG either.

The downside existed which Fox isn't good - bad shooting inefficient player who didn't space or play above average D. Team looked best with the Keon/Monk lineup, that can still exist with Zach not Fox. Zach can play off ball and space for others, Fox cant and neither should be your prime playmaker

Who knows why other teams didn't target Zach, I know why the Kings FO did.. his efficiency been tops this year

[bpcox05]

LaVine will play SF

He played SF/PF most of this year in chi

Allowing Keon to start

Demar will be 6th man

And the Kings targeted Zach because he’s good

Considering how cheap it was to acquire LaVine, why didn’t any other teams target LaVine if he’s so good?

As for LaVine playing SF, we don’t want that. He’s got average size/length for the SG spot (8’4” standing reach and 6’8.25” wingspan) but playing him at SF immediately makes us more undersized (especially since Sabonis doesn’t have good size/length at C). He can swing up to SF for stretches during the game but we don’t him starting and closing games at SF. That’s not going to be a recipe for success.

And this is where the main issue lies…we basically have the perfect 2-way, role playing starter in Keon Ellis at SG but we swapped our “star” PG (who was a terrific fit next to Ellis) for a “star” SG that essentially blocks Ellis. So that leaves us with these options…

1.) Start Ellis and Lavine at PG and SG (not ideal offensively as we don’t have a PG on the floor and you’d be forcing LaVine into more of an initiator role which is not the best way to utilize him)
2.) Start Ellis and LaVine at SG and SF (now you’re willingly starting with a small lineup that can be exploited by teams)
3.) Start Ellis at SG and bench LaVine (LaVine is a starting caliber player who now is coming off the bench. Not to mention that’s a lot of money to tie up into someone coming off the bench/not closing out games).
4.) Start LaVine at SG and bench Ellis (not ideal as Ellis’ defense is ideally utilized on the opposing teams best offensive players, and he is far from a zero on offense which means he’s an excellent player to have in the game when it’s crunch time).

No matter what option we choose, there is a downside. This downside didn’t exist when we still had Fox on the roster, and we could project the fit and impact of a Fox/Ellis backcourt. You still have the scoring that LaVine brings and the defense Ellis brings, but the PG play is what is missing and Fox checked that box.

He was playing 78% of his minutes this year in Chi at SF and PF I believe... He's not necessarily a good defender at SG either.

The downside existed which Fox isn't good - bad shooting inefficient player who didn't space or play above average D. Team looked best with the Keon/Monk lineup, that can still exist with Zach not Fox. Zach can play off ball and space for others, Fox cant and neither should be your prime playmaker

Who knows why other teams didn't target Zach, I know why the Kings FO did.. his efficiency been tops this year

Okay…and? The Bulls had the 24th ranked defense this year while LaVine was on the team. That’s not exactly a ringing endorsement to play him out of position at SF and commit to small ball (especially when your C is already undersized and not a defensive anchor). Put frankly…just because the Bulls played him at SF for many minutes doesn’t mean it’s a good idea to play him at SF for many minutes.

You claim Fox isn’t good but he ranks better than LaVine in the top advanced impact stats? How does that work? It’s almost like there is more to basketball than just TS%.

Lastly, you claim that the team looked best with the Monk/Ellis lineup. That’s actually incorrect. The team was considerably more impactful when Fox & Ellis were on the floor and Monk was off the floor vs. when Monk & Ellis were on the floor and Fox was off the floor…

On: Fox & Ellis / Off: Monk = +11.6 Net Rating
On: Monk & Ellis / Off: Fox = +5.4 Net Rating

As you can see, we were 6.2 points per 100 possessions better when we went with Fox & Ellis. I think your eye test is falling short here.

[BoogieTime]

Considering how cheap it was to acquire LaVine, why didn’t any other teams target LaVine if he’s so good?

As for LaVine playing SF, we don’t want that. He’s got average size/length for the SG spot (8’4” standing reach and 6’8.25” wingspan) but playing him at SF immediately makes us more undersized (especially since Sabonis doesn’t have good size/length at C). He can swing up to SF for stretches during the game but we don’t him starting and closing games at SF. That’s not going to be a recipe for success.

And this is where the main issue lies…we basically have the perfect 2-way, role playing starter in Keon Ellis at SG but we swapped our “star” PG (who was a terrific fit next to Ellis) for a “star” SG that essentially blocks Ellis. So that leaves us with these options…

1.) Start Ellis and Lavine at PG and SG (not ideal offensively as we don’t have a PG on the floor and you’d be forcing LaVine into more of an initiator role which is not the best way to utilize him)
2.) Start Ellis and LaVine at SG and SF (now you’re willingly starting with a small lineup that can be exploited by teams)
3.) Start Ellis at SG and bench LaVine (LaVine is a starting caliber player who now is coming off the bench. Not to mention that’s a lot of money to tie up into someone coming off the bench/not closing out games).
4.) Start LaVine at SG and bench Ellis (not ideal as Ellis’ defense is ideally utilized on the opposing teams best offensive players, and he is far from a zero on offense which means he’s an excellent player to have in the game when it’s crunch time).

No matter what option we choose, there is a downside. This downside didn’t exist when we still had Fox on the roster, and we could project the fit and impact of a Fox/Ellis backcourt. You still have the scoring that LaVine brings and the defense Ellis brings, but the PG play is what is missing and Fox checked that box.

He was playing 78% of his minutes this year in Chi at SF and PF I believe... He's not necessarily a good defender at SG either.

The downside existed which Fox isn't good - bad shooting inefficient player who didn't space or play above average D. Team looked best with the Keon/Monk lineup, that can still exist with Zach not Fox. Zach can play off ball and space for others, Fox cant and neither should be your prime playmaker

Who knows why other teams didn't target Zach, I know why the Kings FO did.. his efficiency been tops this year

Okay…and? The Bulls had the 24th ranked defense this year while LaVine was on the team. That’s not exactly a ringing endorsement to play him out of position at SF and commit to small ball (especially when your C is already undersized and not a defensive anchor). Put frankly…just because the Bulls played him at SF for many minutes doesn’t mean it’s a good idea to play him at SF for many minutes.

You claim Fox isn’t good but he ranks better than LaVine in the top advanced impact stats? How does that work? It’s almost like there is more to basketball than just TS%.

Lastly, you claim that the team looked best with the Monk/Ellis lineup. That’s actually incorrect. The team was considerably more impactful when Fox & Ellis were on the floor and Monk was off the floor vs. when Monk & Ellis were on the floor and Fox was off the floor…

On: Fox & Ellis / Off: Monk = +11.6 Net Rating
On: Monk & Ellis / Off: Fox = +5.4 Net Rating

As you can see, we were 6.2 points per 100 possessions better when we went with Fox & Ellis. I think your eye test is falling short here.

With the starting lineup... I don't know the noise from the lineups your using... The team looked the best it has this season when fox was injured during the, albeit, 4 game stretch the team started Keon/Monk when they were posting +13 on @GSW MIA @BOS @Min.. According to nba.com 5 man units Fox/Ellis didn't play a lot with the starters, or enough to simulate that and I dont think they started at all? Keon/Monk played with the starters over twice as many minutes looking good

Its not about what's optimal, Zach is one of the team's best players, and maybe he's better guarding strength than speed at this point in his career.

As for Fox/Lavine, TS% for me is what it boils down to when neither are known for being defensive players (Fox a bit below average and Zach sizably below average), playmakers, and Fox doesn't space the floor. One being below average TS% (the biggest tool we use for efficiency) and one being a arguably a top 5 example, is pretty big in their careers

[bpcox05]

He was playing 78% of his minutes this year in Chi at SF and PF I believe... He's not necessarily a good defender at SG either.

The downside existed which Fox isn't good - bad shooting inefficient player who didn't space or play above average D. Team looked best with the Keon/Monk lineup, that can still exist with Zach not Fox. Zach can play off ball and space for others, Fox cant and neither should be your prime playmaker

Who knows why other teams didn't target Zach, I know why the Kings FO did.. his efficiency been tops this year

Okay…and? The Bulls had the 24th ranked defense this year while LaVine was on the team. That’s not exactly a ringing endorsement to play him out of position at SF and commit to small ball (especially when your C is already undersized and not a defensive anchor). Put frankly…just because the Bulls played him at SF for many minutes doesn’t mean it’s a good idea to play him at SF for many minutes.

You claim Fox isn’t good but he ranks better than LaVine in the top advanced impact stats? How does that work? It’s almost like there is more to basketball than just TS%.

Lastly, you claim that the team looked best with the Monk/Ellis lineup. That’s actually incorrect. The team was considerably more impactful when Fox & Ellis were on the floor and Monk was off the floor vs. when Monk & Ellis were on the floor and Fox was off the floor…

On: Fox & Ellis / Off: Monk = +11.6 Net Rating
On: Monk & Ellis / Off: Fox = +5.4 Net Rating

As you can see, we were 6.2 points per 100 possessions better when we went with Fox & Ellis. I think your eye test is falling short here.

With the starting lineup... I don't know the noise from the lineups your using... The team looked the best it has this season when fox was injured during the, albeit, 4 game stretch the team started Keon/Monk when they were posting +13 on @GSW MIA @BOS @Min.. According to nba.com 5 man units Fox/Ellis didn't play a lot with the starters, or enough to simulate that and I dont think they started at all? Keon/Monk played with the starters over twice as many minutes looking good

Its not about what's optimal, Zach is one of the team's best players, and maybe he's better guarding strength than speed at this point in his career.

As for Fox/Lavine, TS% for me is what it boils down to when neither are known for being defensive players (Fox a bit below average and Zach sizably below average), playmakers, and Fox doesn't space the floor. One being below average TS% (the biggest tool we use for efficiency) and one being a arguably a top 5 example, is pretty big in their careers

Fox/Ellis are better with the starters as well so that’s not really helping your case. The general point is that the Fox/Ellis combo is more impactful than the Monk/Ellis combo and you’ve yet to share any data that counters that point (other than cherry picking a 4 game sample size).

It’s not about what’s optimal? Of course it is. You want to maximize the talent you have on your roster, and if your “star” player is best at SG, you either make roster moves to accommodate and complement that player allowing him to play his optimal positions or you move that player in an effort to balance the roster. Not thinking about what is optimal is how you end up with the fantasy basketball roster we have now where we’re trotting out a plethora of below average defenders who all like to get up their shots.

Fox is a better defender than LaVine. The eye test backs that up and the advanced impact stats as well. He’s also a better playmaker and passer than LaVine. LaVine is a shooter and scorer at the end of the day but Fox can run an offense while still being a good scorer and defender. It’s why it’s not surprising that Fox outshines LaVine on these advanced impact stats. Again, basketball is more than just TS%.

[BoogieTime]

Okay…and? The Bulls had the 24th ranked defense this year while LaVine was on the team. That’s not exactly a ringing endorsement to play him out of position at SF and commit to small ball (especially when your C is already undersized and not a defensive anchor). Put frankly…just because the Bulls played him at SF for many minutes doesn’t mean it’s a good idea to play him at SF for many minutes.

You claim Fox isn’t good but he ranks better than LaVine in the top advanced impact stats? How does that work? It’s almost like there is more to basketball than just TS%.

Lastly, you claim that the team looked best with the Monk/Ellis lineup. That’s actually incorrect. The team was considerably more impactful when Fox & Ellis were on the floor and Monk was off the floor vs. when Monk & Ellis were on the floor and Fox was off the floor…

On: Fox & Ellis / Off: Monk = +11.6 Net Rating
On: Monk & Ellis / Off: Fox = +5.4 Net Rating

As you can see, we were 6.2 points per 100 possessions better when we went with Fox & Ellis. I think your eye test is falling short here.

With the starting lineup... I don't know the noise from the lineups your using... The team looked the best it has this season when fox was injured during the, albeit, 4 game stretch the team started Keon/Monk when they were posting +13 on @GSW MIA @BOS @Min.. According to nba.com 5 man units Fox/Ellis didn't play a lot with the starters, or enough to simulate that and I dont think they started at all? Keon/Monk played with the starters over twice as many minutes looking good

Its not about what's optimal, Zach is one of the team's best players, and maybe he's better guarding strength than speed at this point in his career.

As for Fox/Lavine, TS% for me is what it boils down to when neither are known for being defensive players (Fox a bit below average and Zach sizably below average), playmakers, and Fox doesn't space the floor. One being below average TS% (the biggest tool we use for efficiency) and one being a arguably a top 5 example, is pretty big in their careers

Fox/Ellis are better with the starters as well so that’s not really helping your case. The general point is that the Fox/Ellis combo is more impactful than the Monk/Ellis combo and you’ve yet to share any data that counters that point (other than cherry picking a 4 game sample size).

It’s not about what’s optimal? Of course it is. You want to maximize the talent you have on your roster, and if your “star” player is best at SG, you either make roster moves to accommodate and complement that player allowing him to play his optimal positions or you move that player in an effort to balance the roster. Not thinking about what is optimal is how you end up with the fantasy basketball roster we have now where we’re trotting out a plethora of below average defenders who all like to get up their shots.

Fox is a better defender than LaVine. The eye test backs that up and the advanced impact stats as well. He’s also a better playmaker and passer than LaVine. LaVine is a shooter and scorer at the end of the day but Fox can run an offense while still being a good scorer and defender. It’s why it’s not surprising that Fox outshines LaVine on these advanced impact stats. Again, basketball is more than just TS%.

The best starting lineup this year featured Monk/Keon in the backcourt I should say, and Zac can play with them and Fox can't.

Fox got steals and deflections but he wasn't a good defender and the impact metrics dont say that. He's a better defender than LaVine, but you wouldn't have either on your team for defensive purposes.

And you arguably don't need him/want him running the offense, he doesn't have traditional pg playmaking and its why the FO felt rightly or wrongly about not getting a PG at the deadline because they felt obviously Monk was the de facto PG. And if thats the case who do you want playing off ball - Lavine or fox

[codydaze]

With the starting lineup... I don't know the noise from the lineups your using... The team looked the best it has this season when fox was injured during the, albeit, 4 game stretch the team started Keon/Monk when they were posting +13 on @GSW MIA @BOS @Min.. According to nba.com 5 man units Fox/Ellis didn't play a lot with the starters, or enough to simulate that and I dont think they started at all? Keon/Monk played with the starters over twice as many minutes looking good

Its not about what's optimal, Zach is one of the team's best players, and maybe he's better guarding strength than speed at this point in his career.

As for Fox/Lavine, TS% for me is what it boils down to when neither are known for being defensive players (Fox a bit below average and Zach sizably below average), playmakers, and Fox doesn't space the floor. One being below average TS% (the biggest tool we use for efficiency) and one being a arguably a top 5 example, is pretty big in their careers

Fox/Ellis are better with the starters as well so that’s not really helping your case. The general point is that the Fox/Ellis combo is more impactful than the Monk/Ellis combo and you’ve yet to share any data that counters that point (other than cherry picking a 4 game sample size).

It’s not about what’s optimal? Of course it is. You want to maximize the talent you have on your roster, and if your “star” player is best at SG, you either make roster moves to accommodate and complement that player allowing him to play his optimal positions or you move that player in an effort to balance the roster. Not thinking about what is optimal is how you end up with the fantasy basketball roster we have now where we’re trotting out a plethora of below average defenders who all like to get up their shots.

Fox is a better defender than LaVine. The eye test backs that up and the advanced impact stats as well. He’s also a better playmaker and passer than LaVine. LaVine is a shooter and scorer at the end of the day but Fox can run an offense while still being a good scorer and defender. It’s why it’s not surprising that Fox outshines LaVine on these advanced impact stats. Again, basketball is more than just TS%.

The best starting lineup this year featured Monk/Keon in the backcourt I should say, and Zac can play with them and Fox can't.

Fox got steals and deflections but he wasn't a good defender and the impact metrics dont say that. He's a better defender than LaVine, but you wouldn't have either on your team for defensive purposes.

And you arguably don't need him/want him running the offense, he doesn't have traditional pg playmaking and its why the FO felt rightly or wrongly about not getting a PG at the deadline because they felt obviously Monk was the de facto PG. And if thats the case who do you want playing off ball - Lavine or fox

But this is just factually incorrect.

There have basically been five main starting lineups this year:
Fox-Monk-Derozan-Keegan-Sabonis (19 Games)
Fox-Huerter-Derozan-Keegan-Sabonis (12 Games)
Monk-Lavine-Derozan-Keegan-Sabonis (8 Games)
Fox-Keon-Derozan-Keegan-Sabonis (5 Games)
Monk-Keon-Derozan-Keegan-Sabonis (4 Games)

The best lineup in terms of Net Rating is Fox-Keon-Derozan-Murray-Sabonis who were +20.4 in 80 minutes. Monk in place of Fox there was +13.4 in 177 minutes.

The worst lineup in terms of Net Rating is Monk-Lavine-Derozan-Murray-Sabonis who are -5.7 in 146 minutes (that lineup managed a -41.8 Net Rating in last night's 42 point win).

Fox/Monk/Ellis sharing the floor with Derozan/Sabonis was +17.3 in 69 minutes.

Lavine/Monk/Ellis sharing the floor with Derozan/Sabonis is -17.6 in 10 minutes.

Fox/Monk/Ellis as a 3 man lineup was +0.3 in 149 minutes and Lavine/Monk/Ellis have been a +1.5 in 37 minutes so maybe that's the gotcha? Just hopefully they play less minutes with Derozan and Sabonis, I guess?

[BoogieTime]

Fox/Ellis are better with the starters as well so that’s not really helping your case. The general point is that the Fox/Ellis combo is more impactful than the Monk/Ellis combo and you’ve yet to share any data that counters that point (other than cherry picking a 4 game sample size).

It’s not about what’s optimal? Of course it is. You want to maximize the talent you have on your roster, and if your “star” player is best at SG, you either make roster moves to accommodate and complement that player allowing him to play his optimal positions or you move that player in an effort to balance the roster. Not thinking about what is optimal is how you end up with the fantasy basketball roster we have now where we’re trotting out a plethora of below average defenders who all like to get up their shots.

Fox is a better defender than LaVine. The eye test backs that up and the advanced impact stats as well. He’s also a better playmaker and passer than LaVine. LaVine is a shooter and scorer at the end of the day but Fox can run an offense while still being a good scorer and defender. It’s why it’s not surprising that Fox outshines LaVine on these advanced impact stats. Again, basketball is more than just TS%.

The best starting lineup this year featured Monk/Keon in the backcourt I should say, and Zac can play with them and Fox can't.

Fox got steals and deflections but he wasn't a good defender and the impact metrics dont say that. He's a better defender than LaVine, but you wouldn't have either on your team for defensive purposes.

And you arguably don't need him/want him running the offense, he doesn't have traditional pg playmaking and its why the FO felt rightly or wrongly about not getting a PG at the deadline because they felt obviously Monk was the de facto PG. And if thats the case who do you want playing off ball - Lavine or fox

But this is just factually incorrect.

There have basically been five main starting lineups this year:
Fox-Monk-Derozan-Keegan-Sabonis (19 Games)
Fox-Huerter-Derozan-Keegan-Sabonis (12 Games)
Monk-Lavine-Derozan-Keegan-Sabonis (8 Games)
Fox-Keon-Derozan-Keegan-Sabonis (5 Games)
Monk-Keon-Derozan-Keegan-Sabonis (4 Games)

The best lineup in terms of Net Rating is Fox-Keon-Derozan-Murray-Sabonis who were +20.4 in 80 minutes. Monk in place of Fox there was +13.4 in 177 minutes.

The worst lineup in terms of Net Rating is Monk-Lavine-Derozan-Murray-Sabonis who are -5.7 in 146 minutes (that lineup managed a -41.8 Net Rating in last night's 42 point win).

Fox/Monk/Ellis sharing the floor with Derozan/Sabonis was +17.3 in 69 minutes.

Lavine/Monk/Ellis sharing the floor with Derozan/Sabonis is -17.6 in 10 minutes.

Fox/Monk/Ellis as a 3 man lineup was +0.3 in 149 minutes and Lavine/Monk/Ellis have been a +1.5 in 37 minutes so maybe that's the gotcha? Just hopefully they play less minutes with Derozan and Sabonis, I guess?

I mean if we are arguing for being small with Lavine playing at SF, who is playing what with Fox/Monk/Ellis starting)? But interesting death lineup numbers..

In terms of the original lineup of Monk or Fox, I thought my argument was actually seeing the group start and set the game tone for some games over tough comp had merit over random permutations, but I see how some dont see that

[codydaze]

The best starting lineup this year featured Monk/Keon in the backcourt I should say, and Zac can play with them and Fox can't.

Fox got steals and deflections but he wasn't a good defender and the impact metrics dont say that. He's a better defender than LaVine, but you wouldn't have either on your team for defensive purposes.

And you arguably don't need him/want him running the offense, he doesn't have traditional pg playmaking and its why the FO felt rightly or wrongly about not getting a PG at the deadline because they felt obviously Monk was the de facto PG. And if thats the case who do you want playing off ball - Lavine or fox

But this is just factually incorrect.

There have basically been five main starting lineups this year:
Fox-Monk-Derozan-Keegan-Sabonis (19 Games)
Fox-Huerter-Derozan-Keegan-Sabonis (12 Games)
Monk-Lavine-Derozan-Keegan-Sabonis (8 Games)
Fox-Keon-Derozan-Keegan-Sabonis (5 Games)
Monk-Keon-Derozan-Keegan-Sabonis (4 Games)

The best lineup in terms of Net Rating is Fox-Keon-Derozan-Murray-Sabonis who were +20.4 in 80 minutes. Monk in place of Fox there was +13.4 in 177 minutes.

The worst lineup in terms of Net Rating is Monk-Lavine-Derozan-Murray-Sabonis who are -5.7 in 146 minutes (that lineup managed a -41.8 Net Rating in last night's 42 point win).

Fox/Monk/Ellis sharing the floor with Derozan/Sabonis was +17.3 in 69 minutes.

Lavine/Monk/Ellis sharing the floor with Derozan/Sabonis is -17.6 in 10 minutes.

Fox/Monk/Ellis as a 3 man lineup was +0.3 in 149 minutes and Lavine/Monk/Ellis have been a +1.5 in 37 minutes so maybe that's the gotcha? Just hopefully they play less minutes with Derozan and Sabonis, I guess?

I mean if we are arguing for being small with Lavine playing at SF, who is playing what with Fox/Monk/Ellis starting)? But interesting death lineup numbers..

In terms of the original lineup of Monk or Fox, I thought my argument was actually seeing the group start and set the game tone for some games over tough comp had merit over random permutations, but I see how some dont see that

I'm with you on the Fox/Monk/Ellis starting unit. I was always of the opinion Monk was a sixth man but that option has kind of been thrown out the window now, I don't think you can move him back to bench at this point. I just never believed in Monk as a full time PG, the pass/assist distribution numbers support the fact that Monk has a really solid 2 man game with Sabonis, which is where the bulk of his playmaking goes, while Fox distributed the ball much more evenly and got more people involved.

I see us in a difficult spot right now with Monk/Ellis/Lavine all being deserving of minutes at the 2 spot but it forces at least one of them to constantly be playing out of position. If Devin Carter can pan out that helps but he wasn't even a very good distributor in college so we're banking on some huge improvements in that area.

[BoogieTime]

Okay…and? The Bulls had the 24th ranked defense this year while LaVine was on the team. That’s not exactly a ringing endorsement to play him out of position at SF and commit to small ball (especially when your C is already undersized and not a defensive anchor). Put frankly…just because the Bulls played him at SF for many minutes doesn’t mean it’s a good idea to play him at SF for many minutes.

You claim Fox isn’t good but he ranks better than LaVine in the top advanced impact stats? How does that work? It’s almost like there is more to basketball than just TS%.

Lastly, you claim that the team looked best with the Monk/Ellis lineup. That’s actually incorrect. The team was considerably more impactful when Fox & Ellis were on the floor and Monk was off the floor vs. when Monk & Ellis were on the floor and Fox was off the floor…

On: Fox & Ellis / Off: Monk = +11.6 Net Rating
On: Monk & Ellis / Off: Fox = +5.4 Net Rating

As you can see, we were 6.2 points per 100 possessions better when we went with Fox & Ellis. I think your eye test is falling short here.

With the starting lineup... I don't know the noise from the lineups your using... The team looked the best it has this season when fox was injured during the, albeit, 4 game stretch the team started Keon/Monk when they were posting +13 on @GSW MIA @BOS @Min.. According to nba.com 5 man units Fox/Ellis didn't play a lot with the starters, or enough to simulate that and I dont think they started at all? Keon/Monk played with the starters over twice as many minutes looking good

Its not about what's optimal, Zach is one of the team's best players, and maybe he's better guarding strength than speed at this point in his career.

As for Fox/Lavine, TS% for me is what it boils down to when neither are known for being defensive players (Fox a bit below average and Zach sizably below average), playmakers, and Fox doesn't space the floor. One being below average TS% (the biggest tool we use for efficiency) and one being a arguably a top 5 example, is pretty big in their careers

Fox/Ellis are better with the starters as well so that’s not really helping your case. The general point is that the Fox/Ellis combo is more impactful than the Monk/Ellis combo and you’ve yet to share any data that counters that point (other than cherry picking a 4 game sample size).

It’s not about what’s optimal? Of course it is. You want to maximize the talent you have on your roster, and if your “star” player is best at SG, you either make roster moves to accommodate and complement that player allowing him to play his optimal positions or you move that player in an effort to balance the roster. Not thinking about what is optimal is how you end up with the fantasy basketball roster we have now where we’re trotting out a plethora of below average defenders who all like to get up their shots.

Fox is a better defender than LaVine. The eye test backs that up and the advanced impact stats as well. He’s also a better playmaker and passer than LaVine. LaVine is a shooter and scorer at the end of the day but Fox can run an offense while still being a good scorer and defender. It’s why it’s not surprising that Fox outshines LaVine on these advanced impact stats. Again, basketball is more than just TS%.

Also we need to understand, Fox isn't a good scorer... when your putting up volume on sub league average TS% you are causing damage, not helping

He isn't spacing and putting up sub average ts%, thats bad individual offense.

He just put up 6-21 on 1-9 tonight, and has been continuing his inefficiency in San Antonio.

I feel bad, because as far as I'm concerned we gave them a lemon