Can somebody please explain why Nikola Vucevic trade value is so low?

[bondom34]

What you're saying now is that the Spurs and Thunder are built around Parker and Westbrook? I'd have to strongly disagree with you there my friend.

Haslem and Perk could defend, yes -- but they did it in limited roles. Why couldn't Vucevic get the 30 MPG while the Magic bring in a similar player for that limited role?

And before we go over the fact that they were "starters," starting the game and playing 25 minutes is pretty loose use of the word "starter"

No, but are the Magic built around Vuc?

Because even fewer teams are built around offense only Cs who win titles in history.

And yes, they were starters, and played the most minutes at C on those teams. Again, you can deny what's been shown in history but we're all seeing it here. You can get rim protection and interior defense from bigs. Offense is from anywhere.

And Vuc could get 30 mpg fine, but you're playing a poor defender for 30 minutes. For reference, Haslem wasn't a heavy minute player, he played backup to Bosh plenty and Bosh is a better defender than Vuc. Perk's backup was Glen Davis and he played next to a DPOY caliber big. All 4 of them are much better defenders than Vuc.

Sorry, but you don't win with that from a C.

What you don't win without, is an elite level player. You mention history, but ignore the examples that don't support your point. Of the past twenty years, has there more often than not been defensive stoppers there? Yes. Universally? No. Why? Because you can win titles with a defensive liability there.
We are.

But again look at every title winner, ever.

Tell me how many truly bad defenders were at C.

Pau used to be good, Bosh is solid.

Don't know of a bad one.
At worst, you can win titles pairing a defensive liability with good support.

In no way, shape, or form, is it impossible to win an NBA title without a plus defender as your starting center.

But hey, we're allowed to disagree.

[Wade]

No, but are the Magic built around Vuc?

Because even fewer teams are built around offense only Cs who win titles in history.

And yes, they were starters, and played the most minutes at C on those teams. Again, you can deny what's been shown in history but we're all seeing it here. You can get rim protection and interior defense from bigs. Offense is from anywhere.

And Vuc could get 30 mpg fine, but you're playing a poor defender for 30 minutes. For reference, Haslem wasn't a heavy minute player, he played backup to Bosh plenty and Bosh is a better defender than Vuc. Perk's backup was Glen Davis and he played next to a DPOY caliber big. All 4 of them are much better defenders than Vuc.

Sorry, but you don't win with that from a C.

What you don't win without, is an elite level player. You mention history, but ignore the examples that don't support your point. Of the past twenty years, has there more often than not been defensive stoppers there? Yes. Universally? No. Why? Because you can win titles with a defensive liability there.
We are.

But again look at every title winner, ever.

Tell me how many truly bad defenders were at C.

Pau used to be good, Bosh is solid.

Don't know of a bad one.
At worst, you can win titles pairing a defensive liability with good support.

In no way, shape, or form, is it impossible to win an NBA title without a plus defender as your starting center.

But hey, we're allowed to disagree.

Personally, I would call Bynum and Bosh average at best. They count for half of the last 8 championships, unless we're really going to call Udonis Haslem's 15-20 MPG in the playoffs "starter" minutes with a straight face.

[uraverage]

All of this hoopla about Defensive Centers are the only way you win just seems wrong.
There are teams this year that didn't make the playoffs that had defensive centers... (Washington, Utah, Phoenix,ETC...)
Teams that almost didn't make the playoffs that had defensive centers.... ( Houston, Detroit)

It takes a star player and luck to win in the NBA.
When looking at the list of teams that made the playoffs only 2 stand out that don't have what I would consider a star player. (Boston and maybe Charlotte).

Vuc is just fine on Orlando. The Magic just need a star player.

[bondom34]

But hey, we're allowed to disagree.

[/quote]

Personally, I would call Bynum and Bosh average at best. They count for half of the last 8 championships, unless we're really going to call Udonis Haslem's 15-20 MPG in the playoffs "starter" minutes with a straight face.[/quote]
Just looking at a single defensive stat, DBPM.

Both of those "average" defenders are much better than Vuc.

Career 1.4 for Bosh, 1.3 Bynum, 0.6 Vuc.

That's not even really close.

[OrlandoNed]

All of this hoopla about Defensive Centers are the only way you win just seems wrong.
There are teams this year that didn't make the playoffs that had defensive centers... (Washington, Utah, Phoenix,ETC...)
Teams that almost didn't make the playoffs that had defensive centers.... ( Houston, Detroit)

It takes a star player and luck to win in the NBA.
When looking at the list of teams that made the playoffs only 2 stand out that don't have what I would consider a star player. (Boston and maybe Charlotte).

Vuc is just fine on Orlando. The Magic just need a star player.

Everybody has defensive centers because it's painfully obvious that they are necessary. Yes, stars are what matter but even they had a defensive center on their title teams.

Better question how many teams have bad defensive centers? How many of them are any good?

[Wade]

But hey, we're allowed to disagree.

Personally, I would call Bynum and Bosh average at best. They count for half of the last 8 championships, unless we're really going to call Udonis Haslem's 15-20 MPG in the playoffs "starter" minutes with a straight face.[/quote]
Just looking at a single defensive stat, DBPM.

Both of those "average" defenders are much better than Vuc.

Career 1.4 for Bosh, 1.3 Bynum, 0.6 Vuc.

That's not even really close.[/quote]

Well, for one, no single statistic can encapsulate a player. We both know that.

For two, being a better defender than Vucevic doesn't make you a good defender. We both know that, too.

[bondom34]

But hey, we're allowed to disagree.

Personally, I would call Bynum and Bosh average at best. They count for half of the last 8 championships, unless we're really going to call Udonis Haslem's 15-20 MPG in the playoffs "starter" minutes with a straight face.

Just looking at a single defensive stat, DBPM.

Both of those "average" defenders are much better than Vuc.

Career 1.4 for Bosh, 1.3 Bynum, 0.6 Vuc.

That's not even really close.[/quote]

Well, for one, no single statistic can encapsulate a player. We both know that.

For two, being a better defender than Vucevic doesn't make you a good defender. We both know that, too.[/quote]
Yes, but being a clearly worse defender than the worst examples of defenders at the position to win is a bad thing.

And you can try whatever statistic you'd like, he's still worse.

[Texas Chuck]

This conversation feels circular at this point. If we don't start seeing some new thoughts or new posters I think its about time to shut it down.

[Wade]

Personally, I would call Bynum and Bosh average at best. They count for half of the last 8 championships, unless we're really going to call Udonis Haslem's 15-20 MPG in the playoffs "starter" minutes with a straight face.

Just looking at a single defensive stat, DBPM.

Both of those "average" defenders are much better than Vuc.

Career 1.4 for Bosh, 1.3 Bynum, 0.6 Vuc.

That's not even really close.

Well, for one, no single statistic can encapsulate a player. We both know that.

For two, being a better defender than Vucevic doesn't make you a good defender. We both know that, too.[/quote]
Yes, but being a clearly worse defender than the worst examples of defenders at the position to win is a bad thing.

And you can try whatever statistic you'd like, he's still worse.[/quote]

Sure, he's worse. I don't know when this discussion broke down into "Are these guys better defenders than Vucevic?" but it's a total deflection of the question posed -- are they good defensive centers? I think we can all agree the answer is no. Did they win titles? Yes, half of the last eight. By following the logic, I think it's fair to say that having a plus defender at center is not a prerequisite for winning a title. It wasn't twenty years ago, and it isn't today.

Does it help? Of course. Having good defense at any position helps win championships. That's why the cliche of, "Defense wins championships," exists. Is it a prerequisite? Of course not. Recent history, modern NBA history, ancient NBA history, they all tell us this.

[bondom34]

Personally, I would call Bynum and Bosh average at best. They count for half of the last 8 championships, unless we're really going to call Udonis Haslem's 15-20 MPG in the playoffs "starter" minutes with a straight face.

Just looking at a single defensive stat, DBPM.

Both of those "average" defenders are much better than Vuc.

Career 1.4 for Bosh, 1.3 Bynum, 0.6 Vuc.

That's not even really close.

Well, for one, no single statistic can encapsulate a player. We both know that.

For two, being a better defender than Vucevic doesn't make you a good defender. We both know that, too.

Yes, but being a clearly worse defender than the worst examples of defenders at the position to win is a bad thing.

And you can try whatever statistic you'd like, he's still worse.[/quote]

Sure, he's worse. I don't know when this discussion broke down into "Are these guys better defenders than Vucevic?" but it's a total deflection of the question posed -- are they good defensive centers? I think we can all agree the answer is no. Did they win titles? Yes, half of the last eight. By following the logic, I think it's fair to say that having a plus defender at center is not a prerequisite for winning a title. It wasn't twenty years ago, and it isn't today.

Does it help? Of course. Having good defense at any position helps win championships. That's why the cliche of, "Defense wins championships," exists. Is it a prerequisite? Of course not. Recent history, modern NBA history, ancient NBA history, they all tell us this.[/quote]
Not sure what you are saying.

Defense wins, so that's wrong.

And yes there's a difference between "not good" and "bad".

Its like saying "you need elite players to win" and then listing players who are just above average. The same goes in reverse.

[Wade]

This conversation feels circular at this point. If we don't start seeing some new thoughts or new posters I think its about time to shut it down.

Y'know, I never understood the idea of closing topics with respectful back-and-forth. I sidestepped that Ned guy for that very reason - to keep it respectful. But I'll see myself out of this thread before getting any more caught up in the discussion just to see it locked.

[Texas Chuck]

This conversation feels circular at this point. If we don't start seeing some new thoughts or new posters I think its about time to shut it down.

Y'know, I never understood the idea of closing topics with respectful back-and-forth. I sidestepped that Ned guy for that very reason - to keep it respectful. But I'll see myself out of this thread before getting any more caught up in the discussion just to see it locked.

You will note I have not locked it--nor did I lock it now. Precisely because the discussion has remained civil.

But at some point the discussion needs to go somewhere. And forgive me for thinking that it hasn't for awhile now.

[uraverage]

The real answer to the question is Vuc's value is low because because his good offense does not out weigh his bad defense in most eyes.

Defense at the Center position does not guarantee wins. If so, the Clippers should have 2 championships in their hands. They had 2 of the 5 1st team all-defensive players the last 2 years. One being at center.

[Wade]

Just looking at a single defensive stat, DBPM.

Both of those "average" defenders are much better than Vuc.

Career 1.4 for Bosh, 1.3 Bynum, 0.6 Vuc.

That's not even really close.

Well, for one, no single statistic can encapsulate a player. We both know that.

For two, being a better defender than Vucevic doesn't make you a good defender. We both know that, too.

Yes, but being a clearly worse defender than the worst examples of defenders at the position to win is a bad thing.

And you can try whatever statistic you'd like, he's still worse.

Sure, he's worse. I don't know when this discussion broke down into "Are these guys better defenders than Vucevic?" but it's a total deflection of the question posed -- are they good defensive centers? I think we can all agree the answer is no. Did they win titles? Yes, half of the last eight. By following the logic, I think it's fair to say that having a plus defender at center is not a prerequisite for winning a title. It wasn't twenty years ago, and it isn't today.

Does it help? Of course. Having good defense at any position helps win championships. That's why the cliche of, "Defense wins championships," exists. Is it a prerequisite? Of course not. Recent history, modern NBA history, ancient NBA history, they all tell us this.[/quote]
Not sure what you are saying.

Defense wins, so that's wrong.

And yes there's a difference between "not good" and "bad".

Its like saying "you need elite players to win" and then listing players who are just above average. The same goes in reverse.[/quote]

Let me try one last time -- maybe we're just destined to disagree, but here goes.

The Thunder are a good example to use, since Vucevic is endlessly compared to Kanter on RealGM. The Thunder played Steven Adams 25 MPG, and Kanter 21. Is it really that outrageous to say that it would have worked if those minutes were flipped, and Kanter was the "starter"? If the answer to that is no, then I ask, is it really that outrageous to say it wouldn't work in Orlando if Vucci were to get 25-30 minutes and a guy along the lines of, say, unrestricted free agent Joakim Noah (or a player like him, let's not get tangled in semantics), were to get 18-23?

I think the answer is no, that's not outrageous, and yes, you could win with it.

[bondom34]

Let me try one last time -- maybe we're just destined to disagree, but here goes.

The Thunder are a good example to use, since Vucevic is endlessly compared to Kanter on RealGM. The Thunder played Steven Adams 25 MPG, and Kanter 21. Is it really that outrageous to say that it would have worked if those minutes were flipped, and Kanter was the "starter"? If the answer to that is no, then I ask, is it really that outrageous to say it wouldn't work in Orlando if Vucci were to get 25-30 minutes and a guy along the lines of, say, unrestricted free agent Joakim Noah (or a player like him, let's not get tangled in semantics), were to get 18-23?

I think the answer is no, that's not outrageous, and yes, you could win with it.

Yes, it is pretty outrageous, given roles on the team.

Kanter plays those minutes against almost exclusively backups, and is still a net negative player (his on/off numbers show this). OKC is significantly better when he's on the bench. To add, his only role is scoring, nothing else.

If he were flipped to start, the lineup drops well off of its current efficiency numbers and renders the team much worse. Its backed up in every stat there is.

Edit: For reference, here:

http://stats.nba.com/league/lineups/#!/advanced/?CF=TEAM_ABBREVIATION*E*OKC|GROUP_NAME*E*Ibaka|GROUP_NAME*E*westbrook|GROUP_NAME*E*Durant|GROUP_NAME*E*Roberson&Season=2015-16&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&sort=NET_RATING&dir=1

2 Lineups, all season.

Durant/Westbrook/Ibaka/Roberson/Adams = 17.8 Net Rating

Durant/Westbrook/Ibaka/Roberson/Kanter = 6.5 Net Rating

[Wade]

Let me try one last time -- maybe we're just destined to disagree, but here goes.

The Thunder are a good example to use, since Vucevic is endlessly compared to Kanter on RealGM. The Thunder played Steven Adams 25 MPG, and Kanter 21. Is it really that outrageous to say that it would have worked if those minutes were flipped, and Kanter was the "starter"? If the answer to that is no, then I ask, is it really that outrageous to say it wouldn't work in Orlando if Vucci were to get 25-30 minutes and a guy along the lines of, say, unrestricted free agent Joakim Noah (or a player like him, let's not get tangled in semantics), were to get 18-23?

I think the answer is no, that's not outrageous, and yes, you could win with it.

Yes, it is pretty outrageous, given roles on the team.

Kanter plays those minutes against almost exclusively backups, and is still a net negative player (his on/off numbers show this). OKC is significantly better when he's on the bench. To add, his only role is scoring, nothing else.

If he were flipped to start, the lineup drops well off of its current efficiency numbers and renders the team much worse. Its backed up in every stat there is.

Edit: For reference, here:

http://stats.nba.com/league/lineups/#!/advanced/?CF=TEAM_ABBREVIATION*E*OKC|GROUP_NAME*E*Ibaka|GROUP_NAME*E*westbrook|GROUP_NAME*E*Durant|GROUP_NAME*E*Roberson&Season=2015-16&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&sort=NET_RATING&dir=1

2 Lineups, all season.

Durant/Westbrook/Ibaka/Roberson/Adams = 17.8 Net Rating

Durant/Westbrook/Ibaka/Roberson/Kanter = 6.5 Net Rating

I appreciate you showing the work behind your opinion, but I'm not ready to draw that conclusion based on a sample size of 76 minutes. The data shows that you're opinion is a sound one, but I feel the data is incomplete.

[bondom34]

Let me try one last time -- maybe we're just destined to disagree, but here goes.

The Thunder are a good example to use, since Vucevic is endlessly compared to Kanter on RealGM. The Thunder played Steven Adams 25 MPG, and Kanter 21. Is it really that outrageous to say that it would have worked if those minutes were flipped, and Kanter was the "starter"? If the answer to that is no, then I ask, is it really that outrageous to say it wouldn't work in Orlando if Vucci were to get 25-30 minutes and a guy along the lines of, say, unrestricted free agent Joakim Noah (or a player like him, let's not get tangled in semantics), were to get 18-23?

I think the answer is no, that's not outrageous, and yes, you could win with it.

Yes, it is pretty outrageous, given roles on the team.

Kanter plays those minutes against almost exclusively backups, and is still a net negative player (his on/off numbers show this). OKC is significantly better when he's on the bench. To add, his only role is scoring, nothing else.

If he were flipped to start, the lineup drops well off of its current efficiency numbers and renders the team much worse. Its backed up in every stat there is.

Edit: For reference, here:

http://stats.nba.com/league/lineups/#!/advanced/?CF=TEAM_ABBREVIATION*E*OKC|GROUP_NAME*E*Ibaka|GROUP_NAME*E*westbrook|GROUP_NAME*E*Durant|GROUP_NAME*E*Roberson&Season=2015-16&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&sort=NET_RATING&dir=1

2 Lineups, all season.

Durant/Westbrook/Ibaka/Roberson/Adams = 17.8 Net Rating

Durant/Westbrook/Ibaka/Roberson/Kanter = 6.5 Net Rating

I appreciate you showing the work behind your opinion, but I'm not ready to draw that conclusion based on a sample size of 76 minutes. The data shows that you're opinion is a sound one, but I feel the data is incomplete.

You could do the same for his time in Utah.

[Wade]

Yes, it is pretty outrageous, given roles on the team.

Kanter plays those minutes against almost exclusively backups, and is still a net negative player (his on/off numbers show this). OKC is significantly better when he's on the bench. To add, his only role is scoring, nothing else.

If he were flipped to start, the lineup drops well off of its current efficiency numbers and renders the team much worse. Its backed up in every stat there is.

Edit: For reference, here:

http://stats.nba.com/league/lineups/#!/advanced/?CF=TEAM_ABBREVIATION*E*OKC|GROUP_NAME*E*Ibaka|GROUP_NAME*E*westbrook|GROUP_NAME*E*Durant|GROUP_NAME*E*Roberson&Season=2015-16&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&sort=NET_RATING&dir=1

2 Lineups, all season.

Durant/Westbrook/Ibaka/Roberson/Adams = 17.8 Net Rating

Durant/Westbrook/Ibaka/Roberson/Kanter = 6.5 Net Rating

I appreciate you showing the work behind your opinion, but I'm not ready to draw that conclusion based on a sample size of 76 minutes. The data shows that you're opinion is a sound one, but I feel the data is incomplete.

You could do the same for his time in Utah.

The Utah comparison wouldn't be a great one, though, since Utah never won anything. We're trying to see if a team can win with a defensive liability at center, and the Jazz can't win with a liability or a stud there.

I think we're bound to disagree here, though I do appreciate the discussion.

[bondom34]

I appreciate you showing the work behind your opinion, but I'm not ready to draw that conclusion based on a sample size of 76 minutes. The data shows that you're opinion is a sound one, but I feel the data is incomplete.

You could do the same for his time in Utah.

The Utah comparison wouldn't be a great one, though, since Utah never won anything. We're trying to see if a team can win with a defensive liability at center, and the Jazz can't win with a liability or a stud there.

I think we're bound to disagree here, though I do appreciate the discussion.

They won a pretty good bit once Kanter left when they were healthy. I think you're just not wanting to see it honestly.

You can look elsewhere too. Try Charlotte winning so much w/o Al Jefferson. There's countless examples.

[thamadkant]

Perception... Vucevic gives out a soft player reputation.


Rim protection or atleast ability to alter shots from a center is also very critical.

Even if he just acts as a wall inside the paint with players hitting him and missing their shots would be good enough... Vucevic sadly doesnt have much evidence of that in game... Its as if he doesnt get physical defensively.


But on a team like Spurs... They would kill for him.
The system defense can hide him or boost his defensive impact through positioning and synergy.


Teams with dominant offensive big men are on losing teams not because of them.
But because their teams are usually bad behind in ball movement or talent... Because they simply dump the ball to the big man and spot up...


But if the team had a dynamic back court that can create plays and scoring opportunities... I dont see how big dominant men cant be on winning teams.



And Al Jefferson was huge for Bobcats making the playoffs a season or two back.

Cousins has terrible casts to carry.



Even Hakeem Olajuwon needed a backcourt that can score well enough on their own to win a couple of rings...Duncan and Spurs circa 2007 is another example of dominant inside bigs that need backcourt players who can create points.