ImageImageImageImageImage

Wizards trade for Davis Bertans "the Latvian Laser"

Moderators: LyricalRico, nate33, montestewart

User avatar
nate33
Forum Mod - Wizards
Forum Mod - Wizards
Posts: 56,036
And1: 9,566
Joined: Oct 28, 2002

Re: Wizards trade for Davis Bertans "the Latvian Laser" 

Post#321 » by nate33 » Fri May 1, 2020 1:49 pm

payitforward wrote:Edit: In fact, if we don't have a deal worked out, we are in even bigger trouble. Tommy & Ted will feel they can't afford not to retain Bertans -- otherwise the Wizards look like utter idiots (having been offered a R1 pick for a guy, turning it down, then losing him for nothing) -- which means they'll pay any amount of money to keep Bertans.

&, of course, if I'm the GM of one of our opponents -- I make them pay as much as possible! Another reason it would have been smart to take the R1 pick from Boston.... Oh well....

I fear this is the scenario that will come to pass. I'm assuming Bertans' agent has pledged to give Washington the opportunity to match any offer, making him effectively a RFA. (In exchange, Sheppard has probably pledged to give Bertans a minimum offer higher than a full MLE deal.)

Atlanta will smell our desperation and offer Bertans something crazy like 3 years $50 million. Sheppard will match because he didn't want to let him get away for nothing. Two years later, we will have to let Troy Brown, Mo Wagner and Thomas Bryant depart in free agency because we are overpaying Wall, Beal and Bertans a combined $104M.
payitforward
RealGM
Posts: 13,741
And1: 4,264
Joined: May 02, 2012
Location: On the Atlantic

Re: Wizards trade for Davis Bertans "the Latvian Laser" 

Post#322 » by payitforward » Fri May 1, 2020 3:06 pm

Yes, that's one bad outcome -- the other being that we simply are forced by circumstances to let him go. & that is why, when you acquire a guy for a tpe & then someone offers you a R1 pick for him... you take it! Above all if, like Davis, he's expiring.

Fans, including fans on this board, tend to see their teams in ways that have little relationship to the realities of decision-making. They see the team as entertainment & inspiration, & they see players as heroes. "I like Davis Bertans"... followed by description of all that he does that inspires/entertains them, as if what he does could not be replaced by someone else doing it.

Davis has 1 significant skill -- he makes 3's. That he does extremely well & at high volume too. But, actually, Davis Bertans has never been a starter in the NBA, & that's because he doesn't produce good enough numbers across the board to be a starter. Even on offense, where his 3-point shooting stands out, what defines any player's offensive contribution is his TS% at his usage level (plus whatever else he does that contributes to team offensive efficiency).

Thus, I'm sure most people here think that Davis Bertans had a better season than Thomas Bryant this year. Yet, it's the opposite: Bryant's "down" year was a far, far better season than Bertans had. Not to mention that Bryant is 22 & likely to improve in every area of his game. He's far from his peak, while Davis Bertans will turn 28 in November. When Davis was Bryant's age, he wasn't even in the NBA yet.

Yet, "better, younger & cheaper" doesn't seem to do it for fans! People here are ready to trade Bryant for who cares what, but... we must have Bertans no matter the cost!
Remember -- if you don't like the post above: blame Doc not me.
DCZards
General Manager
Posts: 7,777
And1: 2,189
Joined: Jul 16, 2005
Location: The Streets of DC

Re: Wizards trade for Davis Bertans "the Latvian Laser" 

Post#323 » by DCZards » Fri May 1, 2020 4:30 pm

I’m guessing the Zards didn’t trade Bertans to Boston for two reasons: 1.) They believe they can resign him at a reasonable number and they see him as an even more productive and dangerous 3pt shooter when teamed with John Wall. 2.) The Celts weren’t offering a high enough first round draft pick.

(Boston may have wanted Bertans but they also knew they’d have to resign him this offseason. So the Celts probably weren’t willing to give up the 17th pick for a player who could turn out to be a 2-month loaner. They were more than likely offering the 26th pick….maybe even the 30th pick.)

Davis has given every indication that he likes it here. So gambling on resigning him wasn’t necessarily a bad move by TS & Co.

Nevertheless, the Zards gamble could turn out to have been wrong, and they could lose Bertans to the Hawks or another team that’s willing and capable of overypaying him. But there are risks involved in every decision and hanging on to Bertans may have been one worth taking given his unique skillset...and his ability to open up the court for his teammates.

Worse case scenario is that the Zards lost out on a draft pick at the end of the first round by not making the trade with the Celts. That wouldn’t be the end of the world.

And don’t forget we already have a replacement for Davis: Garrison “Bombs Away” Matthews. :D
payitforward
RealGM
Posts: 13,741
And1: 4,264
Joined: May 02, 2012
Location: On the Atlantic

Re: Wizards trade for Davis Bertans "the Latvian Laser" 

Post#324 » by payitforward » Fri May 1, 2020 7:54 pm

Zards -- you may well be right. I like Davis & if we keep him at "a reasonable number" such that the scenario nate envisoned does not come about (i.e. that paying Bertans doesn't wind up making it impossible to keep e.g. Brown, Bryant, etc.), then why not?

Note that your point #1 is, in effect, the same one I made: I do think we have a deal worked out to keep him at a (relatively) reasonable number. But, if someone comes along & blows that up with a nosebleedingly high offer....

As to your other points -- obviously, neither of us knows which R1 pick Ainge offered. I would have taken any of them -- no matter which it was, turning a tpe into a R1 pick is still an accomplishment! Still, I tell you what... when the time comes I'll record whom I'd have taken at each of those spots & we can see whether any/all of them turn out to be better than Bertans.

If Davis Bertans has a "unique skillset," how can we "already have a replacement" for him? :) He doesn't. As to Mathews, he only played 227 minutes, & he did look promising! Yet... he's a wing, a guard/forward, not a replacement for Davis.

Like many people looking for ways to make Davis seem all the better, you mention "...his ability to open up the court for his teammates."

Were that a significant fact, we would see some of those players with higher FG percentages than typical for them. I don't see that. Without that supporting evidence, I'm not inclined to give any value to that claim about Davis: why would I?
Remember -- if you don't like the post above: blame Doc not me.
User avatar
wall_glizzy
Freshman
Posts: 70
And1: 46
Joined: Jun 15, 2019
 

Re: Wizards trade for Davis Bertans "the Latvian Laser" 

Post#325 » by wall_glizzy » Sat May 2, 2020 2:51 am

payitforward wrote:Were that a significant fact, we would see some of those players with higher FG percentages than typical for them. I don't see that. Without that supporting evidence, I'm not inclined to give any value to that claim about Davis: why would I?


I take it this was just a guess? This is the 2019-2020 FG% for every player who played more than ~150 minutes with and ~150 minutes without Bertans

Image
payitforward
RealGM
Posts: 13,741
And1: 4,264
Joined: May 02, 2012
Location: On the Atlantic

Re: Wizards trade for Davis Bertans "the Latvian Laser" 

Post#326 » by payitforward » Sat May 2, 2020 1:28 pm

Now that is extremely interesting -- thanks!

It would be even more useful if for each of these guys we had both 2 & 3 pt. %s & number of shots per xx minutes w/ & w/o Bertans on the floor. That would enable us to quantify this effect.

Still, what you've posted is a significant element that might argue for Davis's value beyond his own numbers.

OTOH, note that on the season Davis's on/off was -.3 points. Any thoughts on that? -- EDIT: no, that's his plus/minus! Given that we were -4.1/game to the league, his -0.3 is very good.
Remember -- if you don't like the post above: blame Doc not me.
payitforward
RealGM
Posts: 13,741
And1: 4,264
Joined: May 02, 2012
Location: On the Atlantic

Re: Wizards trade for Davis Bertans "the Latvian Laser" 

Post#327 » by payitforward » Sat May 2, 2020 1:49 pm

On a quick scan, it looks like only 2 Wizards had a positive +/-

Anyone care to guess who they were?
Spoiler:
Isaac Bonga & Garrison Mathews.
Remember -- if you don't like the post above: blame Doc not me.
User avatar
nate33
Forum Mod - Wizards
Forum Mod - Wizards
Posts: 56,036
And1: 9,566
Joined: Oct 28, 2002

Re: Wizards trade for Davis Bertans "the Latvian Laser" 

Post#328 » by nate33 » Sat May 2, 2020 2:27 pm

wall_glizzy wrote:
payitforward wrote:Were that a significant fact, we would see some of those players with higher FG percentages than typical for them. I don't see that. Without that supporting evidence, I'm not inclined to give any value to that claim about Davis: why would I?


I take it this was just a guess? This is the 2019-2020 FG% for every player who played more than ~150 minutes with and ~150 minutes without Bertans

Image

:o





What website did you use to get that chart?
payitforward
RealGM
Posts: 13,741
And1: 4,264
Joined: May 02, 2012
Location: On the Atlantic

Re: Wizards trade for Davis Bertans "the Latvian Laser" 

Post#329 » by payitforward » Sat May 2, 2020 6:29 pm

Like any set of interesting facts, this one gives us more interesting questions to ask. Off the top of my head...

How did Davis being on or off affect the usage level of other players? Is there a relationship between how much effect Davis had on a player's FG% & how much effect he had on that player's usage? As well, how many offensive possessions did the team have per some number of minutes with Davis on the floor vs. off the floor. &, obviously, it would also be useful to look at similar numbers on defense.
Remember -- if you don't like the post above: blame Doc not me.
User avatar
wall_glizzy
Freshman
Posts: 70
And1: 46
Joined: Jun 15, 2019
 

Re: Wizards trade for Davis Bertans "the Latvian Laser" 

Post#330 » by wall_glizzy » Sun May 3, 2020 12:13 am

payitforward wrote:It would be even more useful if for each of these guys we had both 2 & 3 pt. %s & number of shots per xx minutes w/ & w/o Bertans on the floor. That would enable us to quantify this effect.


Unfortunately I don't have time at the moment to grab minute totals, USG, etc, but will re-visit later this weekend. Meanwhile, here's 2P%, 3P%, and TS% (to try and clarify some of the outlier effects, especially on 3P%, which are most due to rather small samples). Just for clarity, the names are in order of minutes played with (or "as") Bertans.

Image


nate33 wrote: :o

What website did you use to get that chart?


I made the chart in Google Docs, but the data's from NBA WOWY (with or without you)! It used to have its own site, but has been moved over here: https://www.addmorefunds.com/nba/wowy

A frustrating layout sometimes, but an incredible tool.

payitforward wrote:As well, how many offensive possessions did the team have per some number of minutes with Davis on the floor vs. off the floor.


Since this one was quick (albeit subject to so many variables that I don't think it's very informative), the team's pace (possessions / 48 mins) was 105 with Bertans on the floor and 102 without.
payitforward
RealGM
Posts: 13,741
And1: 4,264
Joined: May 02, 2012
Location: On the Atlantic

Re: Wizards trade for Davis Bertans "the Latvian Laser" 

Post#331 » by payitforward » Mon May 4, 2020 3:53 pm

@Wall-Glizzy: let me see whether I can put my query a little more clearly, as I did not mean to be asking about pace.

When Bertans is on the floor, other players see their FG % rise. That means, perforce, that the team's FG% is higher when he's on the floor (doh -- & especially b/c his own FG% is high). This increases the team's chance to win the game by upping the team's TS% (essentially a composite of efg% & FT%).

Of course, we also must know whether our opponents' FG% was better, worse or the same with Bertans on the floor or off. Otherwise, we don't know what the above means. But even knowing that, we couldn't conclude from either team's scoring efficiency alone that Davis being on the floor increases our overall chance to win the game.

Why? B/c, overall, there are 2 factors that go into winding up with more points than your opponent (i.e. winning). Posting a higher TS% than your opponent is one of them. Giving yourself more opportunities to score (more shots/ftas) than your opponent is the other.

If you score at a higher TS% you can win even with fewer shots/FTs. If you have more shots/FTs, you can win, even if you score less efficiently than the team you are playing. If you do both -- higher TS% & more opportunities to score -- you cannot lose. If you do neither, you cannot win. Simple arithmetic.

Thus, to know whether Davis's positive effect on his teammates' FG%s actually helped the Wizards win games last year, we must also know his effect is on his team's opportunities to score (shots/FTs) -- & also, obviously, his effect on the number of opportunities our opponents had to score, since 1 less opportunity for them is 1 more opportunity for us, comparatively.

Obviously, the number of opportunities we have & the opponent has w-w/o Davis on the floor will be at least in part a function of his ball possession stats vs. whoever is playing when he's not playing.

Now, we can learn something, of course, by looking at those numbers for Davis vs. the average for NBA players at his position. But... we may not be playing an average guy when Davis isn't on the floor, so comparing Davis's ball possession stats to average isn't conclusive. Still, maybe it's worth a quick & generic look.

Davis averaged just over 29 minutes per game this year. Overall, his ball-possession stats vs. those of an average 4, indicate that during those minutes, our opponents have @5.3 more opportunities to score relative to the Wizards than they would if an NBA average 4 (i.e. with average ball possession numbers: rebounds, steals, TOs, blocks & fouls) played those minutes.

On average, an NBA team turn 5.3 extra scoring opportunities into 6 extra points. Again, that's based on the NBA average ball possession numbers for a 4, vs. those of Davis, in 29 minutes. But it tells us something. Or, to put it slightly differently, it reminds us to look at the team's record: 24-40.
Remember -- if you don't like the post above: blame Doc not me.
Ruzious
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 40,318
And1: 6,555
Joined: Jul 17, 2001
       

Re: Wizards trade for Davis Bertans "the Latvian Laser" 

Post#332 » by Ruzious » Mon May 4, 2020 6:24 pm

wall_glizzy wrote:
payitforward wrote:Were that a significant fact, we would see some of those players with higher FG percentages than typical for them. I don't see that. Without that supporting evidence, I'm not inclined to give any value to that claim about Davis: why would I?


I take it this was just a guess? This is the 2019-2020 FG% for every player who played more than ~150 minutes with and ~150 minutes without Bertans

Image

TBSE = The Bertans Spacing Effect.
"Look, you never know when you may need to borrow a cup of sugar, maybe some milk or a handgun" - Dan C. from Texas
User avatar
wall_glizzy
Freshman
Posts: 70
And1: 46
Joined: Jun 15, 2019
 

Re: Wizards trade for Davis Bertans "the Latvian Laser" 

Post#333 » by wall_glizzy » Tue May 5, 2020 12:24 am

payitforward wrote:Davis averaged just over 29 minutes per game this year. Overall, his ball-possession stats vs. those of an average 4, indicate that during those minutes, our opponents have @5.3 more opportunities to score relative to the Wizards than they would if an NBA average 4 (i.e. with average ball possession numbers: rebounds, steals, TOs, blocks & fouls) played those minutes.


I've never been a fan of this analysis. First off, I assume you're pulling this from BoxScoreGeeks? If so, I can't quite replicate it. Assuming you're looking at the difference between Bertans's 2019-2020 averages and those of an "average" player at his position, I count him being down five rebounds, "up" 0.8 turnovers (i.e. committing 0.8 fewer than average), down 0.6 blocks, down 0.2 steals, and "up" 0.4 fouls per 48 (or is it 40?). That is, your method would have him allowing (5 - 0.8 + 0.6 + 0.2 - 0.4 = 4.6) additional scoring opportunities. Doing the same exercise with his career averages gets a bit closer to the 5.3 number you arrived at, although all of these numbers would need to be adjusted (downwards) to match the 29 minutes/game figure that you mentioned. (It's strongly possible that either you or I just missed a category, though, so let me know if my guess at your methodology is off.)

I don't think it's that clean a calculation, though. For one, and I've made this point a bunch of times already, but the failure of Bertans alone to secure a rebound on either end is not automatically a scoring opportunity (i.e. possession) for the other team. The failure of any Wizards player to grab the board is. The relevant statistic here is team TRB%, and the effect that Bertans's presence has on it. I agree, of course, that for Bertans it's probably negative relative to the average 4 (although it should be noted that BSG compares his numbers to the average "big," which I assume is a composite of 4s and the generally even better-rebounding 5s), but at this point it's hard to separate out his specific rebounding numbers, affected as they are by the fact that he spends most of his offensive possessions damn near half-court, from the larger strategic question of balancing the effect his spacing has on the rest of the team's offensive performance against the improved rebounding but reduced spacing that a larger, more range-limited "traditional" PF might offer. As you may notice, this corresponds to exactly the two factors you mentioned: the ability to maximize the value of shots the team takes, vs. the ability to maximize the number of offensive possessions by way of additional rebounding power. It also suggests that one way of estimating Bertans's value would be to look at the overall supply (and contract value) of players who have a similar impact on their teams offensive production, or who provide a similar level of impact on a team's ORB% and/or DRB%.

Turnovers and steals, pretty straightforward. Fouls and blocks, though, also present issues. The first is that all fouls aren't created equal - offensive fouls result in a change of possession (and, accordingly, are already credited to the player as a turnover!), but defensive fouls do not. (Some number of defensive fouls do result in valuable free throw opportunities, but there's no way that I'm aware of to separate the resultant effect on opponent offense out from the data.) If I were to guess, I'd suspect that Bertans's distribution of fouls is even more defense-skewed than most because of his offensive role, but that's pure speculation. As for blocks, they are by no means guaranteed to be recovered by the defense. (In fact, the defense is actually much more likely to get a rebound of a missed shot than they are recover one that is blocked: http://www.82games.com/comm16.htm). In sum, I'm not sure that the simple addition/subtraction approach is appropriate for these either.

Since this conversation had me looking at NBA WOWY once more, here are some other interesting numbers dealing with team scoring opportunities/use of possessions with Bertans on and off the court:

Bertans was on the court for 3463 Wizards possessions, which resulted in 3008 shots (86.9%). Team TS% on those shots was 58.8%. During the opponent's 3463 possessions* in that time, they took 2953 shots (85.3%). Opponent TS% on those shots was 59.4%.

Bertans was off the court for 3205 Wizards possessions, which resulted in 2813 shots (87.8%). Team TS% on those shots was 54.5%. During the opponent's 3205 possessions in that time, they took 2719 shots (84.8%). Opponent TS% on those shots was 60.1%.

Thus, Bertans's implied impact on the Wizards team offensive volume and efficiency is to slightly reduce the number of scoring opportunities, but greatly increase the value of the shots that are taken (0.9% fewer shots to possessions, 4.3% higher TS%). His effect on the Wizards team defensive volume and efficiency is to slightly increase the number of scoring opportunities, but slightly reduce the value of the shots that are taken (0.5% more shots to possessions, 0.7% lower TS%).

There's no question that Bertans's contributions come primarily on offense, but by your two-factor system his measurable impact on the team is quite clearly positive.

* Given that possession numbers for Wizards and opponents are identical, I'm assuming that offensive rebounds are being counted as extensions of the preceding possessions, rather than new possessions. Not ideal (imo), but since we're talking about scoring opportunities the important number here is the ratio of shots to possessions (i.e. the bolded percentages above).
payitforward
RealGM
Posts: 13,741
And1: 4,264
Joined: May 02, 2012
Location: On the Atlantic

Re: Wizards trade for Davis Bertans "the Latvian Laser" 

Post#334 » by payitforward » Tue May 5, 2020 1:17 am

Oh, for sure there's some imprecision here -- as there is in the data you offer (e.g. if we are to calculate the "Bertans effect" of raising a teammate's fg%, we also have to know if his own relatively high usage is lowering the number of shots that player takes, or changing the balance of his shots away from 3's to 2's, etc. etc. etc.

As to your points about boxscore geeks -- every analytical method is imperfect. The only question is how they compare to one another in their correlation to actual wins/losses. Other forms of criticism represent either 1) a narrative about "my favorite indicator" or 2) a misunderstanding of the fact that all of these are tools to analyze reality not actual realities on their own.

As to the meaning of Davis getting or not getting a defensive rebound, look at this in relation to the simple fact that raising a teammate's FG% is "good" or shooting a higher FG% yourself is also "good." In that sense, getting a rebound is "good." Not getting one is less "good." It's not ok to valorize one simple example of positive play while questioning another.

You are right that I used a comparison to an average "big" -- my error. His deficit in rebounds is less when compared to an average PF. Then again, his advantage in points scored is also less. Still, net, he's not as far below average in that comparison.

But... he's still significantly below average. & that is correct. An accurate assessment. As I've said about 1.3 zillion times, I *like* Davis Bertans -- always have! He just isn't nearly as good as the Wizards fans on this board would like to think he is.

Hey, last off-season there were a bunch of people here saying "let's re-sign Jabari Parker if we can get him for $10m." & "let's re-sign Bobby Portis..." etc.

Basketball is two very different things: on the one hand, it's competition. On the other hand it's entertainment. Most fans -- me included -- find it hard to keep those two very different aspects of the game separate one from the other. I'm no different; I was saying "let's re-sign Sam Dekker." I had an entertainment narrative going in my mind about how he was gonna turn it around, he was finally getting it.

You know what? Jabari Parker isn't any good. Bobby Portis isn't any good. Sam Dekker isn't any good. Tommy Sheppard went in an entirely different direction -- one that neither I nor anyone else would have been able to predict with any accuracy. Once he did that, we had to start making up new narratives to match the new Wizards!

Davis is another of those cases where competition & entertainment convey different pictures. It's fun to watch a guy make 3-pointers from 40 feet away! Who cares if he rebounds? How much fun is it to watch a guy get 3 extra rebounds in his 29 minutes? It's not worth mentioning.
Remember -- if you don't like the post above: blame Doc not me.
User avatar
nate33
Forum Mod - Wizards
Forum Mod - Wizards
Posts: 56,036
And1: 9,566
Joined: Oct 28, 2002

Re: Wizards trade for Davis Bertans "the Latvian Laser" 

Post#335 » by nate33 » Tue May 5, 2020 1:55 am

Hey PIF:

Image

http://www.82games.com/1920/19WAS18.HTM

Bertans significantly helps our offense without hurting our defense. He contributes to a massive improvement in our eFG% while only slightly hurting our eFG% allowed. The team actually rebounds BETTER on the defensive glass with Bertans in the game, though he appears to be a significant detriment on the offensive glass.

The biggest blemish I see is that the team allows a lot more FTA's when Bertans is in the game.
payitforward
RealGM
Posts: 13,741
And1: 4,264
Joined: May 02, 2012
Location: On the Atlantic

Re: Wizards trade for Davis Bertans "the Latvian Laser" 

Post#336 » by payitforward » Tue May 5, 2020 2:22 am

This is great stuff, nate -- but... give me a while; I'll come up with something wrong with it! :)
Remember -- if you don't like the post above: blame Doc not me.
payitforward
RealGM
Posts: 13,741
And1: 4,264
Joined: May 02, 2012
Location: On the Atlantic

Re: Wizards trade for Davis Bertans "the Latvian Laser" 

Post#337 » by payitforward » Tue May 5, 2020 2:27 am

Got it!

As you so often point out when I claim some nonentity is an unrecognized superstar... Bertans plays against the other team's substitutes, their 2d stringers, guys up from the g league on their 2 way contracts for a cup of coffee with the real team.

Obviously, he looks good -- you'd expect him to against this weak opposition.


How'm I doing so far? 8-)
Remember -- if you don't like the post above: blame Doc not me.
payitforward
RealGM
Posts: 13,741
And1: 4,264
Joined: May 02, 2012
Location: On the Atlantic

Re: Wizards trade for Davis Bertans "the Latvian Laser" 

Post#338 » by payitforward » Tue May 5, 2020 2:40 am

nate -- can you generate that same chart for Bradley Beal?
Remember -- if you don't like the post above: blame Doc not me.
User avatar
long suffrin' boulez fan
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,858
And1: 1,950
Joined: Nov 18, 2005
Location: Just above Ted's double bottom line
       

Re: Wizards trade for Davis Bertans "the Latvian Laser" 

Post#339 » by long suffrin' boulez fan » Tue May 5, 2020 3:19 am

Ruzious wrote:
wall_glizzy wrote:
payitforward wrote:Were that a significant fact, we would see some of those players with higher FG percentages than typical for them. I don't see that. Without that supporting evidence, I'm not inclined to give any value to that claim about Davis: why would I?


I take it this was just a guess? This is the 2019-2020 FG% for every player who played more than ~150 minutes with and ~150 minutes without Bertans

Image

TBSE = The Bertans Spacing Effect.


LSBF

Long-range Shooting Bertans Factor
In Rizzo we trust
payitforward
RealGM
Posts: 13,741
And1: 4,264
Joined: May 02, 2012
Location: On the Atlantic

Re: Wizards trade for Davis Bertans "the Latvian Laser" 

Post#340 » by payitforward » Tue May 5, 2020 12:04 pm

nate33 wrote:Hey PIF:

Image

http://www.82games.com/1920/19WAS18.HTM

Bertans significantly helps our offense without hurting our defense. He contributes to a massive improvement in our eFG% while only slightly hurting our eFG% allowed. The team actually rebounds BETTER on the defensive glass with Bertans in the game, though he appears to be a significant detriment on the offensive glass.

The biggest blemish I see is that the team allows a lot more FTA's when Bertans is in the game.

Leaving the details aside, am I right to conclude that the significant information here is that per 100 possessions we are 6.5 points better with Davis on the floor than with Davis off the floor?

I.e. doesn't everything else on this chart basically just give us the reasons why that's true?
Remember -- if you don't like the post above: blame Doc not me.

Return to Washington Wizards