OFWGKTA wrote:Never once did I compare Baynes to Gobert as a player. Someone asked me why the Celtics signed Baynes if they don't value players can switch and shoot, which is irrelevant to the discussion at hand because he isn't a big minute player and makes very little comparatively.
Brad would make it work as well as possible no matter what the roster, but again he would rather someone that can space the floor.
Horford's impact on offense isn't dictated by his scoring, he's an elite passer for a C and is always a threat to pick and pop for a three, making it more difficult for defenders to double the ball handler. The Celtics tore apart the Jazz and Gobert this year with their spread offense. Gobert's defensive rating was 115 and 129 in the two games they played. What are you gonna do with Gobert when Lebron and Durant are at the C spot like they were this past playoffs? Horford doesn't stand a chance defensively either, but at least his offensive impact won't be completely be negated in that scenario. I'm certain Ainge feels a max contract would be better spent on a guy who's greatest impact can't be taken away so easily. If Gobert was a very good passer or had at least long two range (he's still young enough to develop those aspects of his game), it'd be a different story. Gobert is better at basketball than Horford overall, but he doesn't fit what the Celtics want to do nearly as much.
Essentially that is not even remotely the argument that's being made, and comparing Gobert to prime Shaq is even more absurd than if I actually did compare Gobert to Baynes as players.
I didn't quote you nor refer to you a single time. If you feel defensive about your opinions..... that's on you.
I'm simply responding to some pretty indefensible opinions that were posted.
In response to you specifically, I wouldn't be quite as comfortable as you seem to be reaching such wide-ranging conclusions based on a two game sample in which there were some unsustainable shooting performances from some Celtics. Unless you think Gerald Green is a lock to go 7 for 8 and that's somehow on Gobert despite him you know being a plus 4 in that game?
And sure Ainge would rather have Lebron on a max than Gobert. Like literally every GM in the Association. But that doesn't remotely mean he wouldn't rather have Gobert than Horford on a max. Something maybe every GM would prefer. Gobert has more impact and is younger. This honestly feels like an incumbent attachment rather than a reasoned basketball idea.
Gobert had a 129 ortg on a team with a 109 otrg. He had more OWS than Gordon Hayward. This doesn't mean he's an elite offensive player, he's not. But it shows that people have lazy ideas about the only ways players can help a team offensively that they really need to re-think. As mentioned earlier, spacing isn't only about having shooters with range. Gobert creates vertical spacing because he can play above the rim, he's an extremely good offensive rebounder so teams can't just leave him to put extra defenders into play. And because of his size he is pulling the other team's most impactful defender out of the primary action over and over and over.
A little basketball knowledge can be more dangerous than no basketball knowledge because it convinces people of things that simply aren't true. I've said it before but I'll say it again--GSW isn't dominating basketball because they've solved basketball and play in the optimal fashion. They are winning because they overwhelm teams with talent. We need to not forget this in attempting to think we should all rush out to replicate them. Because unless you have a Steph, and a Draymond, and a Durant, and a Klay well good luck with all that.
It's just they aren't massive like Shaq so it fools people into thinking lessor players can have the same results if they use the same style. No. no. no. Kerr didn't break basketball. All of this was already being done.