Having a bench scorer would alleviate the majority of our problems

[Kobblehead]

If the goal is to win a title, then bench scoring will not make a difference.
The team just doest have any mental fortitude and that's not because of some dog mentality, although it helps, but because they dont feel confident in their abilities. And that starts with Embiid. He gets frustrated and has a bad body language because he doesnt feel confident in his ability to beat a tough defense. In which important series has he proved that he is a superstar? He has some injuries but at some point it is what it is. He gives up when he doesnt believe he can beat the defense and take over the game. And he hasnt really taken over a series yet, which is a huge red flag for a 28 year old guy. It means that one way or another he is not hard to contain.

You can go back to every series that we lost, other than against the Raptors, and the team underperformed or even straight up lost to an inferior, in theory, team like the last two years. Even against the Raptors, one could say that we had superior or at least equal talent on paper. You can overcome lack of talent with some good moves from the FO, but its very hard to overcome a perennially underachieving core.

So you think we should just trade Embiid because he's incapable of advancing because of a lack of mental fortitude? Seems defeatist. We just need more good players. It's hard to advance in the playoffs with like 4 or 5 contributors, at best.

[VDT]

If the goal is to win a title, then bench scoring will not make a difference.
The team just doest have any mental fortitude and that's not because of some dog mentality, although it helps, but because they dont feel confident in their abilities. And that starts with Embiid. He gets frustrated and has a bad body language because he doesnt feel confident in his ability to beat a tough defense. In which important series has he proved that he is a superstar? He has some injuries but at some point it is what it is. He gives up when he doesnt believe he can beat the defense and take over the game. And he hasnt really taken over a series yet, which is a huge red flag for a 28 year old guy. It means that one way or another he is not hard to contain.

You can go back to every series that we lost, other than against the Raptors, and the team underperformed or even straight up lost to an inferior, in theory, team like the last two years. Even against the Raptors, one could say that we had superior or at least equal talent on paper. You can overcome lack of talent with some good moves from the FO, but its very hard to overcome a perennially underachieving core.

So you think we should just trade Embiid because he's incapable of advancing because of a lack of mental fortitude? Seems defeatist. We just need more good players. It's hard to advance in the playoffs with like 4 or 5 contributors, at best.

Not trade him because we wouldnt get that much imo and we would need to rebuild. But i wouldnt expect much really although i hope to be wrong.
Roster has not really been the problem imho. They should have beaten a young, mediocre and inexperienced Hawks team and they should have beaten, on paper, this middling Heat team with a 32 year old Jimmy Butler and some roleplayers. Losing to them with superior talent is not due to lack of bench scoring or some roleplayer. The team just underachieves year after year. You can blame the coach or the roleplayers, and they could be better, but i dont think they are the main issue. The Bucks are competing against a team better than the Heat without having their second best player. How are we going to contend when we are like the 4th, 5th best team in the conference and when our best player gets contained so easily in the postseason against above average defenses?

[Embiid P]

What some fail to understand is that having a better bench makes the starters better as a result by taking some of the scoring load off them and allowing them more time to sit and conserve their energy for crunchtime. It can be argued that in no other sport is the bench more important than basketball.

[Ferry Avenue]

What some fail to understand is that having a better bench makes the starters better as a result by taking some of the scoring load off them and allowing them more time to sit and conserve their energy for crunchtime. It can be argued that in no other sport is the bench more important than basketball.

What some fail to understand is that the above position is easily testable with a correlation between bench scoring and win percentage in the NBA. That correlation is weak.

Anything important with regard to winning in the NBA, assuming it can be quantitatively measured, and bench scoring certainly can, should have a fairly strong correlation with win percentage. One can hardly argue something is important with regard to winning if that correlation doesn’t exist.

I mean as always, anybody can go on believing whatever he wants, but if a belief is refuted with a simple correlation (or in this case the absence of one), he looks awfully foolish continuing to believe it. It’s about like continuing to believe the earth is flat and sun revolves around it, despite the evidence to the contrary.

[Bum Adebayo]

What some fail to understand is that having a better bench makes the starters better as a result by taking some of the scoring load off them and allowing them more time to sit and conserve their energy for crunchtime. It can be argued that in no other sport is the bench more important than basketball.

Yes it can, when you are Ferry Avenue you can argue that bench doesn't matter much

[Bum Adebayo]

What some fail to understand is that having a better bench makes the starters better as a result by taking some of the scoring load off them and allowing them more time to sit and conserve their energy for crunchtime. It can be argued that in no other sport is the bench more important than basketball.

What some fail to understand is that the above position is easily testable with a correlation between bench scoring and win percentage in the NBA. That correlation is weak.

Anything important with regard to winning in the NBA, assuming it can be quantitatively measured, and bench scoring certainly can, should have a fairly strong correlation with win percentage. One can hardly argue something is important with regard to winning if that correlation doesn’t exist.

I mean as always, anybody can go on believing whatever he wants, but if a belief is refuted with a simple correlation (or in this case the absence of one), he looks awfully foolish continuing to believe it. It’s about like continuing to believe the earth is flat and sun revolves around it, despite the evidence to the contrary.

Bench matters yes

[Ferry Avenue]

What some fail to understand is that having a better bench makes the starters better as a result by taking some of the scoring load off them and allowing them more time to sit and conserve their energy for crunchtime. It can be argued that in no other sport is the bench more important than basketball.

Yes it can, when you are Ferry Avenue you can argue that bench doesn't matter much

And when you’re whatever your name is, you can believe the equivalent of the earth being flat and the sun revolving around it.

[Ferry Avenue]

What some fail to understand is that having a better bench makes the starters better as a result by taking some of the scoring load off them and allowing them more time to sit and conserve their energy for crunchtime. It can be argued that in no other sport is the bench more important than basketball.

What some fail to understand is that the above position is easily testable with a correlation between bench scoring and win percentage in the NBA. That correlation is weak.

Anything important with regard to winning in the NBA, assuming it can be quantitatively measured, and bench scoring certainly can, should have a fairly strong correlation with win percentage. One can hardly argue something is important with regard to winning if that correlation doesn’t exist.

I mean as always, anybody can go on believing whatever he wants, but if a belief is refuted with a simple correlation (or in this case the absence of one), he looks awfully foolish continuing to believe it. It’s about like continuing to believe the earth is flat and sun revolves around it, despite the evidence to the contrary.

Bench matters yes

Then by all means, tell us how strong the correlation between bench scoring and win percentage is in the NBA. If bench scoring matters, it ought to be at least moderately strong.

[Bum Adebayo]

Yes

[Ferry Avenue]

Yes

Well now that you put it that way….

[Bum Adebayo]

What some fail to understand is that the above position is easily testable with a correlation between bench scoring and win percentage in the NBA. That correlation is weak.

Anything important with regard to winning in the NBA, assuming it can be quantitatively measured, and bench scoring certainly can, should have a fairly strong correlation with win percentage. One can hardly argue something is important with regard to winning if that correlation doesn’t exist.

I mean as always, anybody can go on believing whatever he wants, but if a belief is refuted with a simple correlation (or in this case the absence of one), he looks awfully foolish continuing to believe it. It’s about like continuing to believe the earth is flat and sun revolves around it, despite the evidence to the contrary.

Bench matters yes

Blablabla

[Ferry Avenue]

Bench matters yes

Then by all means, tell us how strong the correlation between bench scoring and win percentage is in the NBA. If bench scoring matters, it ought to be at least moderately strong.

That’s one way of blotting out reality….

[Bum Adebayo]

Yes

[brannigan73]

Im a lot more numbers oriented then a lot of fans. When I decide which teams are the best I don't look at rosters alone and try to decide which roster is the more talented by how good individual players are. I look at what historically wins championships numberswise. You need to be good to very good at every aspect of the game as a team. And we have a long way to go because we don't have the right player fit around Embiid, Harden, and Maxey and Im not really seeing the avenues to get there barring some really outstanding moves by Morey. If Tobias Harris and Thybulle are both back we aren't winning squat. Those are the two guys that Morey might be able to use to hoodwink other teams in giving us a few players that fit the mold/roles we need. Namely tough athletic players who can defend, rebound well for there position, and hit threes. We might be able to get one player like that with an exception if we are eligible for the full mid level exception. Problem is we need about 3 of them. Not 3 stars or anything but three quality role players. Guys like Jae Crowder, PJ Tucker, Tyus Jones, Kyle Anderson, Javale McGee, De'Anthony Melton, Daniel Theis, Bobby Portis, to just name a few guys on remaining contenders I like that become avaiblable fairly often and dont cost a ton but there really good players to fill out a roster with around stars and most teams undervalue them. Guys like that.

[sixers4real]

Im a lot more numbers oriented then a lot of fans. When I decide which teams are the best I don't look at rosters alone and try to decide which roster is the more talented by how good individual players are. I look at what historically wins championships numberswise. You need to be good to very good at every aspect of the game. And we got a long way to go because we don't have the right player fit around Embiid, Harden, and Maxey and Im not really seeing the avenues to get there barring some really outstanding moves by Morey. If Tobias Harris and Thybulle are both back we aren't winning squat. Those are the two guys that Morey might be able to use to hoodwink other teams in giving us a few players that fit the mold/roles we need. Namely tough athletic players who can defend, rebound well for there position, and hit threes. We might be able to get one player like that with an exception if we are eligible for the full mid level exception. Problem is we need about 3 of them.

Thybulle + Harris + pick / swap for Christian Wood, David Nwaba and Eric Gordon

Regarding Kobble original post, I agree we need better bench and better role players. This + Embiid being healthy and we can compete for a title. I don’t see Morey moving Maxey and/or going for Beal/Mitchell.

[Bum Adebayo]

We need to sign Carmelo Anthony for the minimum, you need guys that can score off the bench on the cheap and he is perfect for that!

[Jailblazers7]

The simple fact is that you need 7 or 8 guys capable of making an impact in a playoff series and we have 5 (had, RIP Danny’s knee). Bench impact can come from scoring (Herro, Poole), defense (GP2), or all around play (DeAnthony Melton, Brandon Clarke).

You can’t 1) play your starters 48 mins all playoffs or 2) play guys that suck. Right now, those are our only 2 options which is why we always get eliminated in the second round.

[downtownpie]

The bench is almost irrelevant because Rivers won't play them.

Reed should've played all yearn and Joe should be getting more minutes.

[Mik317]

depth is great for when injuries occur you aren't dead in the water. its also good to allow your starters to get rest throughout the year. Its is also great for trade pieces.

and i'm not even asking for a great bench mob either...just not **** nothing. There were games this postseason in which the other team had ONE guy outscore our bench.

[blargh]

Definitely wouldn’t hurt to have more depth, but I feel like it has to be guys who can complement Harden, Maxey, and Harris, since two of those three will be in every bench lineup.

I know he’s a knucklehead, but Christian Wood would check a lot of boxes for us. I wonder if Thybulle, Korkmaz, and a couple of second rounders would get it done. I think they’ll want to give Sengun more minutes as he’s a better fit for their core.