The Wizards big man situation is an embarrassment

[dangermouse]

Just watched Warriors @ Twolves, Bjelinca played meaningful minutes backing up Garnett. Played tough, rebounded, got some putbacks and even hit a 3. We traded his rights to the Wolves in 2010....

The whole Wolves team played with heart the whole game, even though they lost. That oomph that we had last season, particularly the playoffs, the Wolves had in spades and drew within 5 in the 4th on the back of this team effort. If we played that way we would be in a lot better situation than we are now. Hope we get it back for the next game against Magic and keep it up.

[bsilver]

I don't get all the Humphries negativity. He's not the answer as a stretch 4, but the alternatives suggested are way worse. At least he gets some defensive rebounds which no one other than Blair will do. Gooden's played horribly. Dudley's supposed to get 3's and defend but hasn't done either. Playing Blair at PF means abandoning the regular offense when he's in. Playing Porter means we don't have a decent SF.

Humphries isn't bad out there if he just camps out at the 3 point line, trusts his shot, and continues to shoot 40%.

We're trying to play a stretch 4 offense without a legitimate NBA stretch 4. So, either play Humphries, abandon the offense, or make a trade. Since trading for a starting PF is hardest to pull off, stay with Humphries as the first option.

[Dark Faze]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=58&v=ojJeiytvAPI

develop the kid--oubre sf porter pf

[Dat2U]

I don't get all the Humphries negativity. He's not the answer as a stretch 4, but the alternatives suggested are way worse. At least he gets some defensive rebounds which no one other than Blair will do. Gooden's played horribly. Dudley's supposed to get 3's and defend but hasn't done either. Playing Blair at PF means abandoning the regular offense when he's in. Playing Porter means we don't have a decent SF.

Humphries isn't bad out there if he just camps out at the 3 point line, trusts his shot, and continues to shoot 40%.

We're trying to play a stretch 4 offense without a legitimate NBA stretch 4. So, either play Humphries, abandon the offense, or make a trade. Since trading for a starting PF is hardest to pull off, stay with Humphries as the first option.

I would play Dudley & Gooden over Hump... Gooden IS better IMO even if he ranges from really good to horrific at times. Hump is what he's always been his ENTIRE NBA career. A consistent drag on the court. Maybe he doesn't "look" as bad as other options and he can rebound and has the requisite height/weight for the position but he's yet the really help an NBA team his entire career. He's a guy that can eat up minutes on a terrible team and put up decent counting stats. That's all he is.

[Ruzious]

I don't get all the Humphries negativity. He's not the answer as a stretch 4, but the alternatives suggested are way worse. At least he gets some defensive rebounds which no one other than Blair will do. Gooden's played horribly. Dudley's supposed to get 3's and defend but hasn't done either. Playing Blair at PF means abandoning the regular offense when he's in. Playing Porter means we don't have a decent SF.

Humphries isn't bad out there if he just camps out at the 3 point line, trusts his shot, and continues to shoot 40%.

We're trying to play a stretch 4 offense without a legitimate NBA stretch 4. So, either play Humphries, abandon the offense, or make a trade. Since trading for a starting PF is hardest to pull off, stay with Humphries as the first option.

I would play Dudley & Gooden over Hump... Gooden IS better IMO even if he ranges from really good to horrific at times. Hump is what he's always been his ENTIRE NBA career. A consistent drag on the court. Maybe he doesn't "look" as bad as other options and he can rebound and has the requisite height/weight for the position but he's yet the really help an NBA team his entire career. He's a guy that can eat up minutes on a terrible team and put up decent counting stats. That's all he is.

Fans on the Celtics board gave him a lot of praise when the Wiz signed him. You're really over-doing the Hump hate, and you've way overrated Dudley. Gooden is never "really good" for more than a few minutes. Remember Milwaukee paid him to go away.

[nate33]

I don't get all the Humphries negativity. He's not the answer as a stretch 4, but the alternatives suggested are way worse. At least he gets some defensive rebounds which no one other than Blair will do. Gooden's played horribly. Dudley's supposed to get 3's and defend but hasn't done either. Playing Blair at PF means abandoning the regular offense when he's in. Playing Porter means we don't have a decent SF.

Humphries isn't bad out there if he just camps out at the 3 point line, trusts his shot, and continues to shoot 40%.

We're trying to play a stretch 4 offense without a legitimate NBA stretch 4. So, either play Humphries, abandon the offense, or make a trade. Since trading for a starting PF is hardest to pull off, stay with Humphries as the first option.

I would play Dudley & Gooden over Hump... Gooden IS better IMO even if he ranges from really good to horrific at times. Hump is what he's always been his ENTIRE NBA career. A consistent drag on the court. Maybe he doesn't "look" as bad as other options and he can rebound and has the requisite height/weight for the position but he's yet the really help an NBA team his entire career. He's a guy that can eat up minutes on a terrible team and put up decent counting stats. That's all he is.

Fans on the Celtics board gave him a lot of praise when the Wiz signed him. You're really over-doing the Hump hate, and you've way overrated Dudley. Gooden is never "really good" for more than a few minutes. Remember Milwaukee paid him to go away.

Exactly.

Humphries isn't a starting caliber player, but he's a solid rotation big. Obviously, we would all prefer an upgrade at starting PF, but Humphries is still the best option on this roster right now. He's been good for 13 points, 11 boards (per 36) and a .530 TS% for 7 years running. This year, his TS% is actually up to .550 thanks to the 3-ball. His rebounding is down to 9 boards per 36 but I'll wait a few more games to see if that's merely a small sample size fluctuation. His on/off rating is actually better right now that it has been in any of the last 3 seasons. (Though to be fair, his on-court-differential is substantially negative, it's just that the off-court-differential is even more negative because the alternatives to Hump are even worse.)

[Illmatic12]

Kinda wishin we kept Booker....

better than anyone else on the roster at PF, barring a non injured Nene

Booker is definitely not better than Hump.. I think we all concluded that last season. I give Book credit for improving his range in Utah but he's still basically the same guy - more athleticism than bball IQ

Humphries has always been a good reserve when he's playing how he normally plays, around the basket. He has to adjust to this new style.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

I would play Dudley & Gooden over Hump... Gooden IS better IMO even if he ranges from really good to horrific at times. Hump is what he's always been his ENTIRE NBA career. A consistent drag on the court. Maybe he doesn't "look" as bad as other options and he can rebound and has the requisite height/weight for the position but he's yet the really help an NBA team his entire career. He's a guy that can eat up minutes on a terrible team and put up decent counting stats. That's all he is.

Fans on the Celtics board gave him a lot of praise when the Wiz signed him. You're really over-doing the Hump hate, and you've way overrated Dudley. Gooden is never "really good" for more than a few minutes. Remember Milwaukee paid him to go away.

Exactly.

Humphries isn't a starting caliber player, but he's a solid rotation big. Obviously, we would all prefer an upgrade at starting PF, but Humphries is still the best option on this roster right now. He's been good for 13 points, 11 boards (per 36) and a .530 TS% for 7 years running. This year, his TS% is actually up to .550 thanks to the 3-ball. His rebounding is down to 9 boards per 36 but I'll wait a few more games to see if that's merely a small sample size fluctuation. His on/off rating is actually better right now that it has been in any of the last 3 seasons. (Though to be fair, his on-court-differential is substantially negative, it's just that the off-court-differential is even more negative because the alternatives to Hump are even worse.)

What are Dejuan Blair's numbers, nate?

[Dark Faze]

he's not good defensively--that's the main issue

[nate33]

Fans on the Celtics board gave him a lot of praise when the Wiz signed him. You're really over-doing the Hump hate, and you've way overrated Dudley. Gooden is never "really good" for more than a few minutes. Remember Milwaukee paid him to go away.

Exactly.

Humphries isn't a starting caliber player, but he's a solid rotation big. Obviously, we would all prefer an upgrade at starting PF, but Humphries is still the best option on this roster right now. He's been good for 13 points, 11 boards (per 36) and a .530 TS% for 7 years running. This year, his TS% is actually up to .550 thanks to the 3-ball. His rebounding is down to 9 boards per 36 but I'll wait a few more games to see if that's merely a small sample size fluctuation. His on/off rating is actually better right now that it has been in any of the last 3 seasons. (Though to be fair, his on-court-differential is substantially negative, it's just that the off-court-differential is even more negative because the alternatives to Hump are even worse.)

What are Dejuan Blair's numbers, nate?

16.1 PFs and 7.4 TOs per 36 minutes.

PER is -9.3.

[Dat2U]

I would play Dudley & Gooden over Hump... Gooden IS better IMO even if he ranges from really good to horrific at times. Hump is what he's always been his ENTIRE NBA career. A consistent drag on the court. Maybe he doesn't "look" as bad as other options and he can rebound and has the requisite height/weight for the position but he's yet the really help an NBA team his entire career. He's a guy that can eat up minutes on a terrible team and put up decent counting stats. That's all he is.

Fans on the Celtics board gave him a lot of praise when the Wiz signed him. You're really over-doing the Hump hate, and you've way overrated Dudley. Gooden is never "really good" for more than a few minutes. Remember Milwaukee paid him to go away.

Exactly.

Humphries isn't a starting caliber player, but he's a solid rotation big. Obviously, we would all prefer an upgrade at starting PF, but Humphries is still the best option on this roster right now. He's been good for 13 points, 11 boards (per 36) and a .530 TS% for 7 years running. This year, his TS% is actually up to .550 thanks to the 3-ball. His rebounding is down to 9 boards per 36 but I'll wait a few more games to see if that's merely a small sample size fluctuation. His on/off rating is actually better right now that it has been in any of the last 3 seasons. (Though to be fair, his on-court-differential is substantially negative, it's just that the off-court-differential is even more negative because the alternatives to Hump are even worse.)

Please define solid rotation big because there's about 30 PFs off the bench that I'd prefer to Hump and that would likely be a better fit for what were trying to do. As I've mentioned the over-hyping of his counting stats ignores the serious deficiencies on both sides of the court. As I've mentioned repeatedly, he's ignored by opposing defense as they'll gladly give up the occasional Humphries jumper to seal off driving lanes and limit Wall/Gortat P&Rs. He's too low usage, too slow & too jump-shot dependent to be passable on offense. On defense, he offers little resistance for opposing players and tends to be a step late on everything. At every stop the on/off numbers have been bad. His on-court differential being substantially negative is nothing new.

[nate33]

I don't think you can name 30 PF's off the bench who are better than Humphries.

And his on/off numbers were very good in NJ and about breakeven in Boston and in Washington so far this season. His on/off numbers were bad last year and 3 years ago in Brooklyn.

But we've beat this horse to death.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

Exactly.

Humphries isn't a starting caliber player, but he's a solid rotation big. Obviously, we would all prefer an upgrade at starting PF, but Humphries is still the best option on this roster right now. He's been good for 13 points, 11 boards (per 36) and a .530 TS% for 7 years running. This year, his TS% is actually up to .550 thanks to the 3-ball. His rebounding is down to 9 boards per 36 but I'll wait a few more games to see if that's merely a small sample size fluctuation. His on/off rating is actually better right now that it has been in any of the last 3 seasons. (Though to be fair, his on-court-differential is substantially negative, it's just that the off-court-differential is even more negative because the alternatives to Hump are even worse.)

What are Dejuan Blair's numbers, nate?

16.1 PFs and 7.4 TOs per 36 minutes.

PER is -9.3.

Wrong. I am honest and objective. I will show the entire truth. Including the unrepresentative numbers above:
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/b/blairde01.html?mobile=false

Blair per-36 minutes career

.544TS, PER 16.7, 14.7 points, 11.1 rebounds, 2.4 turnovers, 5.0 fouls

You didn't list Humphries fouls or turnovers. His PER, TS, and points are LESS than Blair's even with Wizards numbers figured in.

Nate, please explain the above?

If I wanted to put this on full blast I would post a poll on the player comparison board like I did John Wall vs Boogie Cousins.



Who is better, Blair or Humphries?

[nate33]

What are Dejuan Blair's numbers, nate?

16.1 PFs and 7.4 TOs per 36 minutes.

PER is -9.3.

Over 7 years, not less than 200 minutes as a Wizard.

We've been over this, CCJ. Blair had the good fortune of playing alongside big men with perimeter range (Dirk, Duncan, Diaw, Bonner) so he could play bully ball in the paint without killing team spacing. The Wizards don't have that luxury. If you look at his numbers in Washington, you can see the problem.

But since you asked, Blair posted 14 and 11 per 36 (of a .544 TS%). His high turnover rate and high foul rate brought down his ORtg to 107. (Hump's ORtg over the same stretch was 110). So their numbers are about the same, only Humphries can coexist with non-shooting bigs since he has a 3P% of .400 this year (whereas Blair has a 3P% of 0%).

By the way, Blair has never posted a positive on/off differential, no matter with WAS, DAL, or SAS. He wasn't so bad in his first two seasons (on/off of -2.5) but has been horrific ever since (on/off of -7.7). Humphries has a career on/off of -1.5 and has been +0.5 over the last 6 seasons.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

16.1 PFs and 7.4 TOs per 36 minutes.

PER is -9.3.

Over 7 years, not less than 200 minutes as a Wizard.

We've been over this, CCJ. Blair had the good fortune of playing alongside big men with perimeter range (Dirk, Duncan, Diaw, Bonner) so he could play bully ball in the paint without killing team spacing. The Wizards don't have that luxury. If you look at his numbers in Washington, you can see the problem.

But since you asked, Blair posted 14 and 11 per 36 (of a .544 TS%). His high turnover rate and high foul rate brought down his ORtg to 107. (Hump's ORtg over the same stretch was 110). So their numbers are about the same, only Humphries can coexist with non-shooting bigs since he has a 3P% of .400 this year (whereas Blair has a 3P% of 0%).

By the way, Blair has never posted a positive on/off differential, no matter with WAS, DAL, or SAS. He wasn't so bad in his first two seasons (on/off of -2.5) but has been horrific ever since (on/off of -7.7). Humphries has a career on/off of -1.5 and has been +0.5 over the last 6 seasons.

So, when you replace Dirk or Tim Duncan, might that explain a negative on/off regular season only?

(The first two regular seasons in SA were positive on/off differentials, BTW).

Nate, does NEVER include playoffs?
****Explain the +20.9 with Dallas and the +5.2 with San Antonio , and the +8.6 career per 100 possessions***

Also, explain his career playoff PER of 24.4. (Two very good teams were BETTER in the playoffs with Blair on the floor--I KNOW, because I watched. Just like you're watching Blair as a Wizard. Context matters.)

Nate, this time you're wrong. Every now and then I know exactly what I'm talking about.

[nate33]

Over 7 years, not less than 200 minutes as a Wizard.

We've been over this, CCJ. Blair had the good fortune of playing alongside big men with perimeter range (Dirk, Duncan, Diaw, Bonner) so he could play bully ball in the paint without killing team spacing. The Wizards don't have that luxury. If you look at his numbers in Washington, you can see the problem.

But since you asked, Blair posted 14 and 11 per 36 (of a .544 TS%). His high turnover rate and high foul rate brought down his ORtg to 107. (Hump's ORtg over the same stretch was 110). So their numbers are about the same, only Humphries can coexist with non-shooting bigs since he has a 3P% of .400 this year (whereas Blair has a 3P% of 0%).

By the way, Blair has never posted a positive on/off differential, no matter with WAS, DAL, or SAS. He wasn't so bad in his first two seasons (on/off of -2.5) but has been horrific ever since (on/off of -7.7). Humphries has a career on/off of -1.5 and has been +0.5 over the last 6 seasons.

So, when you replace Dirk or Tim Duncan, might that explain a negative on/off regular season only?

(The first two regular seasons in SA were positive on/off differentials, BTW).

Nate, does NEVER include playoffs?
****Explain the +20.9 with Dallas and the +5.2 with San Antonio , and the +8.6 career per 100 possessions***

Also, explain his career playoff PER of 24.4. (Two very good teams were BETTER in the playoffs with Blair on the floor--I KNOW, because I watched. Just like you're watching Blair as a Wizard. Context matters.)

Nate, this time you're wrong. Every now and then I know exactly what I'm talking about.p

Small sample size theater. He's had 374 playoff minutes versus 6865 career regular season minutes. On/off numbers in particular are completely meaningless in small sample sizes.

[Ruzious]

Also, Blair isn't the same guy anymore. Last year, he didn't play much because he was a fat slob. He's lost the weight, but once you let yourself go like that, there's no guarantee you re-gain your previous physical abilities. He's got to prove it. Maybe he will - I hope he does, but he's got to show something in the chances he gets. Does anyone think he's done that?

[nuposse04]

Everyone on the roster sans maybe Beal can be expected to play better then currently. However, I think we are being a bit unfair to Hump early on.

Right now Hump has a per 36 of 13-9 on 55 TS% with 12 PER and .072 WS/48. Obviously that will go up if they actually sure up the defense. Also Hump is shooting 40% from 3, if anything he needs to be encouraged to shoot more! The biggest issue with Hump is his unwillingness to shoot the ball. Its bogging down the offense unnecessarily so.

Comparatively Gooden here is averaging 8-13 per 36 on 31 TS% (WOW), 11 PER and a -0.005 WS/48. So obviously Gooden can play better, I don't think he has done anything to show he is worth starting. Every time he is out there you can at least count 2-3 offensive sets where he just **** runs into his own man. We're better off with a D-League guy then Gooden currently. Still I think he'll eventually come back to last years averages a bit. This is far too steep a decline.

[Dat2U]

I don't think you can name 30 PF's off the bench who are better than Humphries.

And his on/off numbers were very good in NJ and about breakeven in Boston and in Washington so far this season. His on/off numbers were bad last year and 3 years ago in Brooklyn.

But we've beat this horse to death.

So I got a list of 27... with some key names I left off...my position stands, Hump is near the very bottom of the league when it comes to being a rotation level backup at the PF position.

BOS Amir Johnson/David Lee (whoever doesn't start)
BOS Jared Sullinger
BOS Jonas Jerebko
DET Anthony Tolliver
TOR James Johnson
TOR Patrick Patterson
CHA Cody Zeller
CHA Frank Kaminsky
IND Lavoy Allen
SAS Boris Diaw/David West (I don't know who plays backup PF vs C for the Spurs b/w the two)

DEN Darrell Arthur
LAC Josh Smith
OKC Mitch McGary
HOU Terrence Jones
CHI Taj Gibson
ORL Channing Frye
ORL Aaron Gordon
MIA Josh McRoberts
NOH Ryan Anderson
CLE Tristan Thompson

POR Ed Davis
OKC Nick Collison
MIN Nemanja Bjelica
PHX Jon Leuer
LAC Brandon Bass
UTA Trevor Booker
GSW Jason Thompson

Note I didn't include guys like Jeff Green, Derrick Williams, Noah Vonleh, Bobby Portis, Mike Scott, Dante Cunningham, Thomas Robinson, Chris Copeland... guys who may have more talent but either are struggling themselves or don't have an established track record of success.

[nate33]

I'd definitely take Humphries over a bunch of those guys. Off the top of my head, I'd take him over Booker, Collison, J.Thompson, Frye (who sucks now), Lavoy Allen and Jerebko.