ImageImageImageImageImage

Official Trade Thread -- Part XXXIX

Moderators: LyricalRico, nate33, montestewart

WallToWall
Bench Warmer
Posts: 1,393
And1: 273
Joined: May 20, 2010
         

Re: Official Trade Thread -- Part XXXIX 

Post#201 » by WallToWall » Sat Oct 17, 2020 8:39 am

payitforward wrote:Hey! We don't see WallToWall all that often -- don't give him a hard time the minute he shows up! :)
LOL, true that.
What do you think the value for a 31 y.o Harden would be?

Sent from my SM-G965U using RealGM mobile app
User avatar
nate33
Forum Mod - Wizards
Forum Mod - Wizards
Posts: 56,310
And1: 9,747
Joined: Oct 28, 2002

Re: Official Trade Thread -- Part XXXIX 

Post#202 » by nate33 » Sat Oct 17, 2020 12:59 pm

WallToWall wrote:
nate33 wrote:
wall_glizzy wrote:This would, uh, be a pretty good trade for the zards. We could follow it up with flipping Bonga for Giannis and the Bucks first - who says no?

C'mon now. Be realistic. We would have to at least include Bertans and Bryant to make the salaries match.
Surprisingly, the salaries match as it is. Houston would probably want a bunch of first round picks. However, Harden is 31 y.o. now, and he probably can keep going at a high level for a couple more years before father time catches up. Now that Morey is out, their new GM may want to go young.

Sent from my SM-G965U using RealGM mobile app

I was talking about the facetious Giannis trade by wall_glizzy.
User avatar
nate33
Forum Mod - Wizards
Forum Mod - Wizards
Posts: 56,310
And1: 9,747
Joined: Oct 28, 2002

Re: Official Trade Thread -- Part XXXIX 

Post#203 » by nate33 » Sat Oct 17, 2020 1:00 pm

WallToWall wrote:
payitforward wrote:Hey! We don't see WallToWall all that often -- don't give him a hard time the minute he shows up! :)
LOL, true that.
What do you think the value for a 31 y.o Harden would be?

Sent from my SM-G965U using RealGM mobile app

Wall has negative value. We would have to give up picks just to unload his contract. Harden is a top 8 player in this league.
User avatar
Dat2U
RealGM
Posts: 21,511
And1: 4,806
Joined: Jun 23, 2001
Location: Columbus, OH
       

Re: Official Trade Thread -- Part XXXIX 

Post#204 » by Dat2U » Sat Oct 17, 2020 4:37 pm

DCZards wrote:
payitforward wrote:
If the goal is to contend for an NBA title -- or at least for the EC title -- then there is every reason not to sign Bertans, at least not if we're going to pay him big $$ for 3 years.

Davis Bertans -- whom I've been following since he was in Europe before the 2011 draft -- is a journeyman. He's never started in his years in the league. He didn't start for us. He has one skill -- just one, no others! -- he shoots the 3 ball in high volume & at a high rate of efficiency. That's it. No... he also shoots FTs extremely well -- but he doesn't get to the line enough for that to matter.

Aside from the positive effect of his 3-point shooting on team results, it also happens to be extremely entertaining to watch. Since basketball is not only competition but also TV entertainment, that contributes to justify paying him. His role in our 25-47 season does not.

Bertans is a specialist. The NBA is full of players like him. Some NBA players are great rebounders others are great passers, others are great defenders and others are great shooters. What you hope to have is a team full of players who are above-average at all of those things. That’s difficult—if not impossible—to achieve.

Bertans' rebounding, passing and D are no doubt negatives. His speciality is long-range, 3 pt shooting, which he does very, very well. Davis’s speciality creates headaches for defenses and opportunities for teammates.

Will Bertans be overpaid at 15 mil per year? Probably. Is he an important piece in helping the Zards win games and get better? Absolutely.


He may be a specialist but its the most important type of specialist. One with unlimited range that defenses must account for. The game of basketball is about making shots. Bertans does that at a high level and efficiently. He'll bring out the best in Wall & Beal because he's ideal offensive fit and spacing & fit absolutely matters. I've argued this with pif but it falls on death ears. I don't need everyone on my roster to rebound at an elite level. You shore up Bertans weaknesses by putting a C next to him that can rebound/defend at a high level.
User avatar
doclinkin
General Manager
Posts: 9,842
And1: 1,968
Joined: Jul 26, 2004
Location: .wizuds.

Re: Official Trade Thread -- Part XXXIX 

Post#205 » by doclinkin » Sat Oct 17, 2020 5:19 pm

Dat2U wrote: I've argued this with pif but it falls on death ears.



For all intensive purposes this is my favorite eggcorn ever. It definitely passes mustard.
User avatar
Dat2U
RealGM
Posts: 21,511
And1: 4,806
Joined: Jun 23, 2001
Location: Columbus, OH
       

Re: Official Trade Thread -- Part XXXIX 

Post#206 » by Dat2U » Sat Oct 17, 2020 5:43 pm

doclinkin wrote:
Dat2U wrote: I've argued this with pif but it falls on death ears.



For all intensive purposes this is my favorite eggcorn ever. It definitely passes mustard.


:lol: :lol: :lol:
dckingsfan
RealGM
Posts: 20,211
And1: 7,682
Joined: May 28, 2010

Re: Official Trade Thread -- Part XXXIX 

Post#207 » by dckingsfan » Sat Oct 17, 2020 6:20 pm

Dat2U wrote:
doclinkin wrote:
Dat2U wrote: I've argued this with pif but it falls on death ears.

For all intensive purposes this is my favorite eggcorn ever. It definitely passes mustard.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Image
payitforward
RealGM
Posts: 14,370
And1: 4,412
Joined: May 02, 2012
Location: On the Atlantic

Re: Official Trade Thread -- Part XXXIX 

Post#208 » by payitforward » Sat Oct 17, 2020 11:57 pm

Dat2U wrote:
doclinkin wrote:
Dat2U wrote: I've argued this with pif but it falls on death ears.



For all intensive purposes this is my favorite eggcorn ever. It definitely passes mustard.


:lol: :lol: :lol:

Watt our youth tutu tall king hey butt, hum? Plea sex plane!

Then queue.
Remember -- if you don't like the post above: blame Doc not me.
payitforward
RealGM
Posts: 14,370
And1: 4,412
Joined: May 02, 2012
Location: On the Atlantic

Re: Official Trade Thread -- Part XXXIX 

Post#209 » by payitforward » Sun Oct 18, 2020 2:42 am

Dat2U wrote:...The game of basketball is about making shots....

If an NBA game worked by giving both teams an equal number of chances to score, you would be right -- although even in that case the game would still be about 2 thing not one: it would be about making shots & preventing the other team from making shots.

But, as you may have noticed, an NBA game does not work that way. You can only make shots you have an opportunity to take -- & you have to earn the opportunity to take those shots.

In one way or another, though probably not in exactly those terms, I've been trying to explain this to you -- but not only to you -- for some time. Yet, oddly, it seems hard for people to absorb. Even though it is utterly true -- & equally obvious as well.

Dat2U wrote:...Bertans does that (i.e. "make shots") at a high level and efficiently....

About this there is no question. Nor have you or anyone had to do any convincing. Nor does anyone need to convince me now. Davis Bertans is an elite shooter in the NBA.

But, just as he is exceptionally good at that, so too he is quite a bit less than good -- in fact, he is BAD -- at the other half of basketball's essence -- doing the things that earn your team (& you) the opportunity to take & make shots. & this...
Dat2U wrote:...You shore up Bertans weaknesses by putting a C next to him that can rebound/defend at a high level.

...makes no more sense than saying it in the opposite direction, i.e. saying "you shore up" the weakness of someone's inability to shoot by putting a good shooter next to him.

If you put a guy who shoots 60% next to a guy who shoots 40%, you might have the equivalent of 2 average shooters. Similarly, if you put a good rebounder next to a bad rebounder, you might wind up with 2 average rebounders.

If we are talking about the same two guys in both cases, it shouldn't take a genius to see that what you have is 2 average players. Duh.

Dat2U wrote:...He'll bring out the best in Wall & Beal because he's ideal offensive fit and spacing & fit absolutely matters....

Really? He will?

Here are 4 2-pt. % figures: 54.8%, 50.7%, 53.8%, 51.5%. Each of these is Brad's 2pt. % in one of the last 4 years -- but I've scrambled them. Here, also scrambled, are his 3pt %s in those years: 35.1%, 37.5%, 35.3%, 40.2%.

The averages of those 2 sets are 52.7% & 37%.

Without looking up the information, please pick the 2pt & 3pt %s that are for the year Brad & Davis were teammates.

But, of course Davis wouldn't just "bring out the best" in Beal's shooting, right? It would be in the rest of the team as well. So, especially given Davis' own extremely high eFG%, surely he would improve the whole team's shooting -- right? Yet, oddly, the team's eFG% went down this year.

Of course there were a bunch of different players this year. How about restricting it to guys who were Wizards last year w/o Davis & again this year with him? Well, other than Beal it was just Thomas Bryant, Jordan McRae & Ian Mahinmi.

With the benefit of Davis Bertans presence, Bryant's efg% went... down. How can that be? Well, at least Jordan McRae... also went down. So unfair when facts get in the way of an obviously perfect theory, isn't it? But, wait... Ian Mahinmi actually shot better this year than last -- as I'm sure you all noticed!

Didn't I tell you that Davis' great spacing makes everyone a better shooter? I mean... isn't it obvious? All you have to do is look at Ian Mahinmi! (Oh... don't look at anyone else, btw)
Remember -- if you don't like the post above: blame Doc not me.
payitforward
RealGM
Posts: 14,370
And1: 4,412
Joined: May 02, 2012
Location: On the Atlantic

Re: Official Trade Thread -- Part XXXIX 

Post#210 » by payitforward » Sun Oct 18, 2020 2:56 am

Oh, I forgot -- one thing is for certain & totally makes Dat's point: the Spurs efg% went down from 53.4% in 2018-19 (when Davis was making everyone else such better shooters) to 53.2% this year when Davis was no longer with them.

What more definitive proof can you have of Davis Bertans effect on other players' shooting, right? The whole team got worse! By one fifth of one percent.

Now, some might be tempted to point out that the drop was more than accounted for simply because Davis Bertans' own excellent shooting was no longer buoying up the team % -- but that is just cynical, so we'll ignore it, right?

Right?
Remember -- if you don't like the post above: blame Doc not me.
WizarDynasty
Starter
Posts: 2,344
And1: 141
Joined: Oct 23, 2003

Re: Official Trade Thread -- Part XXXIX 

Post#211 » by WizarDynasty » Sun Oct 18, 2020 3:31 am

Bertan is a great role player and situational. The problem with Davis is that he is a gimmick player. Meaning that he requires others to extra work in order for him to be successful. The problem with Davis is that if he is not wide open, he is no good. Now you have a guy like klay thompson who if he locked him down with a smaller player, he can take you down in the post. With Bertan, he doesn't have a post game and can't put pressure on a smaller player guarding him. The point of having a 3 point specialist powerforward is that he can punish a team in the post or he can punish slow footed bigs out on the perimeter. Davis is not a starter, he is bench player that you bring in when you want to disrupt another teams game plan but he can not be in your starting line up because his game does not give you an overall net positive. Meaning He can't punish smaller players in the post, he can't offensive rebound, and he doesn't have crunch time moves that draw double teams.
He is a role player in the form of john paxson for chicago bulls except he can't defend like paxson could, ge can't set picks on perimeter to get other players open, and he can't block shots and reduce the other teams shooting percentage.
He is a gimmick player that should never be to over valued as a starter. He will always be a bench player on play off team. A starter has to have at least two way that he creates a net positive on your team both offensively and defensively. Davis 3 point shooting is a positive but he doesn't reduce the work load for his team and allow them to rest on offense. His team has to work very hard just to get him open looks, otherwise, he is ineffective.
Maintaining a high efg% is very hardwork and the players that achieve this need to be able to rest of defense. Beal and Wall have the ability to maintain average efg%. Wizards need a tough build--thick builded, high iq, pick setter, that can hit the open shot and defend on the perimeter in the starting lineup. Chicago had this player with scotty pippen, lakers had it with magic johnson, celtics had it with bird, golden state had it with draymond green, lebron filled this roll with all of his championship teams.
Wizard priority has to be finding a alpha high iq 3 player. JImmy Butler type player without the attitude problems.

who could we trade for that would fit this bill. I don't see any free agents that fit it. I would go after a guy like Harrison Barnes. You need a 6'8 230 well built, above average athlete with high bball iq. I don't think Troy Brown is athletic, he seems to have bad knees, and he isn't long or has explosive quick first step to draw fouls. Maybe others can' refine this though pattern i am generating. Obviously ideal candidates would be k leonard, or Jimmy Butler, but we need cheaper alternatives. Maybe there is a high iq tough long three in draft that i am missing. A draymond green type in the draft?
payitforward
RealGM
Posts: 14,370
And1: 4,412
Joined: May 02, 2012
Location: On the Atlantic

Re: Official Trade Thread -- Part XXXIX 

Post#212 » by payitforward » Sun Oct 18, 2020 2:48 pm

I think "gimmick player" is unnecessarily negative, but WizarDynasty's overall take on Davis is straightforward & accurate: he's a role player. & "situational" gets more of the point than "specialist."

This is interesting:

WizarDynasty wrote:...Wizards need a tough build--thick builded, high iq, pick setter, that can hit the open shot and defend on the perimeter in the starting lineup... JImmy Butler type player without the attitude problems.

...You need a 6'8 230 well built, above average athlete with high bball iq. ...Obviously ideal candidates would be k leonard, or Jimmy Butler, but we need cheaper alternatives. Maybe there is a high iq tough long three in draft that i am missing. A draymond green type in the draft?

The guy who jumps to mind that fits this description - at least somewhat! - is Robert Woodard -- https://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/players/robert-woodard-2.html. He'll go in the first 1/3 - 1/2 of R2, & somebody might get a good player in him.

Only other semi-candidate I can come up with is Mason Jones -- https://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/players/mason-jones-1.html -- who doesn't have the size (6'5", 200 lb SG) but at least is the kind of player WD is talking about. He's might go somewhere around the middle of R2.

Of course, neither of these guys is likely to be in anyone's "starting lineup" as a rookie!
Remember -- if you don't like the post above: blame Doc not me.
User avatar
nate33
Forum Mod - Wizards
Forum Mod - Wizards
Posts: 56,310
And1: 9,747
Joined: Oct 28, 2002

Re: Official Trade Thread -- Part XXXIX 

Post#213 » by nate33 » Sun Oct 18, 2020 3:18 pm

I actually think Klay Thompson is a pretty accurate comparison to Bertans at the offensive end. I don't buy WizD's argument that Thompson is better because he can take smaller players in the post. He takes virtually no post-ups per game and about 80% of his shots are off 0 dribbles or 1 dribble.

Here is how they compare on a per-possession basis:
Image

Thompson scores a bit more, but with lower efficiency. My guess is that Bertans could probably manage the same offensive production if he took extra shots with a higher degree of difficulty.

Thompson is unquestionably better than Bertans because he is a much better defensive player. But it's not because of his offense.
User avatar
Dat2U
RealGM
Posts: 21,511
And1: 4,806
Joined: Jun 23, 2001
Location: Columbus, OH
       

Re: Official Trade Thread -- Part XXXIX 

Post#214 » by Dat2U » Sun Oct 18, 2020 4:53 pm

payitforward wrote:
Dat2U wrote:...The game of basketball is about making shots....

If an NBA game worked by giving both teams an equal number of chances to score, you would be right -- although even in that case the game would still be about 2 thing not one: it would be about making shots & preventing the other team from making shots.

But, as you may have noticed, an NBA game does not work that way. You can only make shots you have an opportunity to take -- & you have to earn the opportunity to take those shots.

In one way or another, though probably not in exactly those terms, I've been trying to explain this to you -- but not only to you -- for some time. Yet, oddly, it seems hard for people to absorb. Even though it is utterly true -- & equally obvious as well.

Dat2U wrote:...Bertans does that (i.e. "make shots") at a high level and efficiently....

About this there is no question. Nor have you or anyone had to do any convincing. Nor does anyone need to convince me now. Davis Bertans is an elite shooter in the NBA.

But, just as he is exceptionally good at that, so too he is quite a bit less than good -- in fact, he is BAD -- at the other half of basketball's essence -- doing the things that earn your team (& you) the opportunity to take & make shots. & this...
Dat2U wrote:...You shore up Bertans weaknesses by putting a C next to him that can rebound/defend at a high level.

...makes no more sense than saying it in the opposite direction, i.e. saying "you shore up" the weakness of someone's inability to shoot by putting a good shooter next to him.

If you put a guy who shoots 60% next to a guy who shoots 40%, you might have the equivalent of 2 average shooters. Similarly, if you put a good rebounder next to a bad rebounder, you might wind up with 2 average rebounders.

If we are talking about the same two guys in both cases, it shouldn't take a genius to see that what you have is 2 average players. Duh.

Dat2U wrote:...He'll bring out the best in Wall & Beal because he's ideal offensive fit and spacing & fit absolutely matters....

Really? He will?

Here are 4 2-pt. % figures: 54.8%, 50.7%, 53.8%, 51.5%. Each of these is Brad's 2pt. % in one of the last 4 years -- but I've scrambled them. Here, also scrambled, are his 3pt %s in those years: 35.1%, 37.5%, 35.3%, 40.2%.

The averages of those 2 sets are 52.7% & 37%.

Without looking up the information, please pick the 2pt & 3pt %s that are for the year Brad & Davis were teammates.

But, of course Davis wouldn't just "bring out the best" in Beal's shooting, right? It would be in the rest of the team as well. So, especially given Davis' own extremely high eFG%, surely he would improve the whole team's shooting -- right? Yet, oddly, the team's eFG% went down this year.

Of course there were a bunch of different players this year. How about restricting it to guys who were Wizards last year w/o Davis & again this year with him? Well, other than Beal it was just Thomas Bryant, Jordan McRae & Ian Mahinmi.

With the benefit of Davis Bertans presence, Bryant's efg% went... down. How can that be? Well, at least Jordan McRae... also went down. So unfair when facts get in the way of an obviously perfect theory, isn't it? But, wait... Ian Mahinmi actually shot better this year than last -- as I'm sure you all noticed!

Didn't I tell you that Davis' great spacing makes everyone a better shooter? I mean... isn't it obvious? All you have to do is look at Ian Mahinmi! (Oh... don't look at anyone else, btw)


The theory behind Washington’s strategy is that Wall, Beal and Bertans will produce an elite offense. There’s evidence to support the theory. This season, with Beal and Bertans on the floor, the Wizards had an offensive rating of 121.5 points per 100 possessions. Adding Thomas Bryant to the lineup boosted the ortg to 122.7. Mix in Rui Hachimura and it was 123.8.


His shooting creates spacing, which helps his teammates. Two seasons ago, the Spurs were +9.5 per 100 possessions on offense when he was on the floor. This season in Washington, the Wizards were +7.4. The defense was basically unchanged.


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bulletsforever.com/platform/amp/2020/9/9/21427816/wizards-player-evaluations-davis-bertans
payitforward
RealGM
Posts: 14,370
And1: 4,412
Joined: May 02, 2012
Location: On the Atlantic

Re: Official Trade Thread -- Part XXXIX 

Post#215 » by payitforward » Sun Oct 18, 2020 8:31 pm

Kevin's analysis is about right, I'd say. With the slight problem that the numbers don't really demonstrate that Davis was better with us than in his last year in SA.

(Aside from scoring & Turnovers, the rest of Davis' numbers didn't change overall. His TS% went down just slightly -- but on significantly increased usage. But, if you factor in the increase in turnovers, it's a slightly greater drop in his true scoring efficiency -- not a big deal but enough that I think it's an exaggeration to say there's any real positive difference overall from last year to this.)

IOW, he is a slightly below average NBA 4.

If you want to say, "no, Kevin says he's a slightly above average NBA 4, & Kevin right" -- no problem: all you have to do is tell me how Kevin calculates his metric, PPA. If you can't do that, if you don't know how he calculates PPA, what does it mean to point to his article? Nothing.

Keep in mind that my assessment of Davis Bertans is not negative, ok? I'm not criticizing him. I don't think he's "bad." The world doesn't divide into angels & devils, heroes & villains. Neither does the NBA divide into "good players" & "bad players."

There's a spectrum, a bell-shaped curve. There are only a few really really good 4s, & there are only a few really really bad 4s. There are a whole lot clustered close to the middle.
Remember -- if you don't like the post above: blame Doc not me.
payitforward
RealGM
Posts: 14,370
And1: 4,412
Joined: May 02, 2012
Location: On the Atlantic

Re: Official Trade Thread -- Part XXXIX 

Post#216 » by payitforward » Sun Oct 18, 2020 8:41 pm

Wait - you answer this question in the season comparison thread. Drop it here....
Dat -- when the season was suspended, we were 24-40 -- a 31-win pace. We had Beal; we had Bertans; we didn't have John Wall.

Bertans comes back. Wall plays. What are you saying? All of a sudden instead of being a 31-win team, we'll be terrific? A contender in the East? Is that what you're suggesting?

We'll be as good as in 2016-17? Is that it?

Or are you saying that if John comes back & plays at a high level we might go from a 31-win team to winning, say, 40 games?

IOW, what do you actually mean by these claims about Davis Bertans working perfectly w/ Brad & John ?
Remember -- if you don't like the post above: blame Doc not me.
payitforward
RealGM
Posts: 14,370
And1: 4,412
Joined: May 02, 2012
Location: On the Atlantic

Re: Official Trade Thread -- Part XXXIX 

Post#217 » by payitforward » Sun Oct 18, 2020 11:21 pm

(Moved from draft thread...)
doclinkin wrote:
nate33 wrote:Just skimming draft picks in 2016 and 2017, and Tony Bradley looks interesting. He's the backup center for Utah and has monstrous per minute numbers (15.5 points, 14.5 boards, 1.8 blocks per 36 on a TS% of .681) while playing just 685 total minutes behind Gobert. He's till got one year left on his rookie deal though, so a trade would be necessary.


There you go. That's the guy. He showed up in one of my various screens for productive defensive freshmen if I recall correctly.

I like him too. Still only 22. But they may not be willing to move him w/ Gobert coming up to a big payday.
Remember -- if you don't like the post above: blame Doc not me.
User avatar
Dat2U
RealGM
Posts: 21,511
And1: 4,806
Joined: Jun 23, 2001
Location: Columbus, OH
       

Re: Official Trade Thread -- Part XXXIX 

Post#218 » by Dat2U » Mon Oct 19, 2020 11:51 am

payitforward wrote:Kevin's analysis is about right, I'd say. With the slight problem that the numbers don't really demonstrate that Davis was better with us than in his last year in SA.

(Aside from scoring & Turnovers, the rest of Davis' numbers didn't change overall. His TS% went down just slightly -- but on significantly increased usage. But, if you factor in the increase in turnovers, it's a slightly greater drop in his true scoring efficiency -- not a big deal but enough that I think it's an exaggeration to say there's any real positive difference overall from last year to this.)

IOW, he is a slightly below average NBA 4.

If you want to say, "no, Kevin says he's a slightly above average NBA 4, & Kevin right" -- no problem: all you have to do is tell me how Kevin calculates his metric, PPA. If you can't do that, if you don't know how he calculates PPA, what does it mean to point to his article? Nothing.

Keep in mind that my assessment of Davis Bertans is not negative, ok? I'm not criticizing him. I don't think he's "bad." The world doesn't divide into angels & devils, heroes & villains. Neither does the NBA divide into "good players" & "bad players."

There's a spectrum, a bell-shaped curve. There are only a few really really good 4s, & there are only a few really really bad 4s. There are a whole lot clustered close to the middle.


PPA is a measure of productivity on the court. Measuring productivity is fine and must be considered but it paints an incomplete picture. I prefer at least two years of on/off data the get an idea a player's true value to a team. Its more than just looking at collective totals in rebounds & points, assists, blocks, turnovers etc. I want to see on-court impact. Defense; blocking out; floor spacing; playing within the flow of an offense. The stuff raw stats or production measurements can't capture. The little things that are the difference between winning and losing.
User avatar
Dat2U
RealGM
Posts: 21,511
And1: 4,806
Joined: Jun 23, 2001
Location: Columbus, OH
       

Re: Official Trade Thread -- Part XXXIX 

Post#219 » by Dat2U » Mon Oct 19, 2020 11:58 am

payitforward wrote:Wait - you answer this question in the season comparison thread. Drop it here....
Or are you saying that if John comes back & plays at a high level we might go from a 31-win team to winning, say, 40 games?

IOW, what do you actually mean by these claims about Davis Bertans working perfectly w/ Brad & John ?


40 games is about right, (38-42 wins) Add a starting C thats a solid defender then upper 40s in wins comes in play. Bonga becomes Otto or we get a solid starting SF, low 50s. Add another solid rotation piece at guard/wing beyond that, you have a team built to take on anyone in the East.
payitforward
RealGM
Posts: 14,370
And1: 4,412
Joined: May 02, 2012
Location: On the Atlantic

Re: Official Trade Thread -- Part XXXIX 

Post#220 » by payitforward » Mon Oct 19, 2020 1:48 pm

Dat2U wrote:
payitforward wrote:Kevin's analysis is about right, I'd say. With the slight problem that the numbers don't really demonstrate that Davis was better with us than in his last year in SA.

(Aside from scoring & Turnovers, the rest of Davis' numbers didn't change overall. His TS% went down just slightly -- but on significantly increased usage. But, if you factor in the increase in turnovers, it's a slightly greater drop in his true scoring efficiency -- not a big deal but enough that I think it's an exaggeration to say there's any real positive difference overall from last year to this.)

IOW, he is a slightly below average NBA 4.

If you want to say, "no, Kevin says he's a slightly above average NBA 4, & Kevin right" -- no problem: all you have to do is tell me how Kevin calculates his metric, PPA. If you can't do that, if you don't know how he calculates PPA, what does it mean to point to his article? Nothing.

Keep in mind that my assessment of Davis Bertans is not negative, ok? I'm not criticizing him. I don't think he's "bad." The world doesn't divide into angels & devils, heroes & villains. Neither does the NBA divide into "good players" & "bad players."

There's a spectrum, a bell-shaped curve. There are only a few really really good 4s, & there are only a few really really bad 4s. There are a whole lot clustered close to the middle.

PPA is a measure of productivity on the court. Measuring productivity is fine and must be considered but it paints an incomplete picture. I prefer at least two years of on/off data the get an idea a player's true value to a team. Its more than just looking at collective totals in rebounds & points, assists, blocks, turnovers etc. I want to see on-court impact. Defense; blocking out; floor spacing; playing within the flow of an offense. The stuff raw stats or production measurements can't capture. The little things that are the difference between winning and losing.

This is a whole discussion on its own, & I've never been able to have it here. Just a few comments for you, Dat. They may seem critical, but that's not the intention, so please don't take them that way, ok?

Dat2U wrote:Measuring productivity is fine and must be considered but it paints an incomplete picture.

Totally correct. In fact, every "picture" is incomplete when compared to the "reality" it seeks to represent. Nothing to be done about that....

Dat2U wrote:I prefer at least two years of on/off data to get an idea a player's true value to a team.

& there's the problem. You assume that a close-up view of "data" gives you "knowledge" -- i.e. of the player's "true value to (his) team."

The knowledge industries have tended to use a tri-partite scheme: data > information > knowledge. You can't stop at the "data." & when you go on from there, you must add methodologies for interpreting the data: both to get information from it & to get knowledge from that info. & you have to know the validity of those methodologies by checking them, independently, against known results.

In this case, you don't "know" more just because you look at more "data" & in more detail. You must have an independent picture of what "value to a team" is in order to get there from the "data."

But, you assume that "on/off data" gives you "value to a team." I.e. as you put it:
Dat2U wrote:...little things... are the difference between winning and losing.


The difference between winning and losing is points on the scoreboard produced by the whole team. That's obvious. Thus, you are saying, in effect, "little things are what put points on the board for our team (& keep them off for the other team)."

How do you know that? Suppose the on/off data is very positive, but the team actually experiences no gains in wins when the player logs more minutes compared to when he logs fewer minutes?

Do you even really believe your own statement, for that matter? When you described Davis Bertans' value yesterday, you pointed to his 3-point shooting %. That's not a "little thing" -- it's a big thing! & its contribution is obvious -- both in points provided & in spacing that gives other players more open shots (& should therefore have a positive effect on their FG%).

For another, there's only way to determine the utility of one way of "measuring productivity" as compared to some other way, & that is to figure out how well it correlates with actual wins and losses as compared to that other way. That's the only relevant "measure" of productivity.
Remember -- if you don't like the post above: blame Doc not me.

Return to Washington Wizards