Dat2U wrote:payitforward wrote:doclinkin wrote:...consistently Bertans has the among the best on/off +/- effect on his team. This year behind only Gafford after sifting garbage time players. Last year behind only Garrison....
There's no resolving this, doc, as there's always one more "fact" to point to.
As I say, the metric you use to judge Davis is completely different from the one you use to judge Bryant. You just confirmed it: the metric you use to show that Davis is better than Bryant also says that he's better than Russell Westbrook. & Bradley Beal. I.e. it's ok to use it to downgrade Bryant, but you wouldn't use it to downgrade Russ or Brad.
Overall, Davis Bertans is having something of an off year. All the same, he has really improved his numbers from his horrible start. He deserves a lot of credit for that.
I think Davis is overpaid at $16m, but my point in this little discussion is not to downgrade him. Not at all. My point is that the metric you use to downgrade Bryant is one that's made up just for him. You don't use it on Davis Bertans. & you don't use it on Brad or Russ.
Thus, when Bryant gets a rebound or hits a three it goes on your list of things that make him "
look efficient." When someone else does one of those things, it's good.
But a rebound and a made shot have the same value no matter whose name is attached to them.
If one wants to downgrade a player, there's always a way. For example, I could make the point that Bryant plays against starters, Davis against back-ups -- an argument that's been made here many times to downgrade other players. But, it's irrelevant. Bryant has flaws, so does Davis. & they both have strengths. You can't claim the strengths are irrelevant in the case of one guy not the other.
You keep comparing Cs to non-Cs which is silly exercise. You compare Cs to other Cs not to Fs who have a totally different role. A C by their size and the nature of their role should be more productive as they generally bigger and closer to the basket. Also because of their role, their impact defense is outsized compared to other positions as they are often the last line of defense.
Bertans is a stretch 4. He does that job well. Even when he's not knocking down shots, defenses still must account for him because of his range. It would be great if he rebounded & defended well but then he'd probably be a max player if he still shot as well as he does and did every thing else.
Bryant is strictly a 5. He's much better rebounder & defender than Davis so sure he looks great in that light or if you compare him to other Fs. But compare him to other starting Cs in the league. Where does his rebounding & defense stand? I view him as a below average defensive C and that was before the injury.
I don't disagree with any of this, Dat. & I didn't compare Bryant to a non-C -- or to anyone, really.
There is nothing even slightly complicated about understanding Thomas Bryant -- except the factor of his injury, of course. He is an outstanding offensive Center & a good not great rebounder. He's not a good defensive Center. None of this is debatable.
You want to trade him for value, sure! Why not? Every player should be available in a trade -- it's all about the deal you can get.
As to understanding the value of a defensive Center, I don't need to have it pointed out to me: let me remind you that I pushed over and over for us to acquire Jarrett Allen -- for precisely that reason.
I'll also mention that I was high on Daniel Gafford in the runup to the '19 draft & would have been delighted to grab him at #33 had we made the draft moves I was hoping for (trade down w/ Boston followed by the same deal as they made with Philly).
That would have netted us Mr. Unnameable, Keldon Johnson & Daniel Gafford instead of Rui Hachimura. Since, each of those 3 guys individually is a better player than Rui Hachimura, I think it's fair to say that would have been a good move. It's also fair to say that I don't know that the trade with Boston would have been possible. All in the past in any case....
As to Bertans -- he is relevant only as an example to point out that you can't employ two totally different kinds of metrics to critique one guy & praise another.
Of course you are right that, even using the same metric, you can't simply line up two columns of numbers to compare the players. You'd have to place your understanding of the two players' numbers in the context of their different positions. You make a solid point about that.
But, such a comparison can certainly can be done -- otherwise it would be essentially impossible to know how to trade guys who play different positions.
