Official Trade Thread -- Part XXXIX

[WizarDynasty]

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:

...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!

I like woodard, i don't think he is going to be there for us in the second round after the smoke. Another team, won't recognize his bad hips and think that it can be easily fixed but it can't. If you get him at bargain, sure he is good for coming off the bench but not starter. the big problem with him is that he has bad hips. He can't accelerate with his knees and hips bent-- and maintain the bend for an extended period of time. when he does attempt to this, it appears that he experiences pain in his knee and he usually bobbles his dribble or passes it. Special players who are undersized but thick build can maintain that hip flexion and hip bend for an extended period of time. Maintaining a low center of gravity and not experience knees problems with being able to maintain excellent balance with excellent handles, those are the traits you looks for in a 3 and D player. That extra bulks makes them a nightmare to guard and they can easily switch and guard larger players because of their bulk and length. AGain woodard, would fit the bill, except he has bad hip, that can maintain a low dip for an extended period of time. You see it on his explosive drives, he can't stay low and keep his balance, and he normally looks at his knee to signal that he is experiencing pain. AGain, that is what makes Draymond Green amazing.

If there was a way to go back to when Woodard was 7 years old and for the next ten years make touch the ground and dribble for at 20 minutes a day, his body...spine, knee and ankle ligaments, calf muscles, would have developed properly to handle the load, but you clearly see this isn't what he did. HIs game is very straight and upright of a center and it looks like he is attempting to add a guard game once he realized that he isn't going to be 7 feet tall. Not something I would I would spend alot of time trying to fix at this point. The problems with him are all related to his knees and hips, and will take a great great great deal of time to fix if ever for him to play the 3 or have the low center of gravity ball handling abilities of draymond green.

[payitforward]

Good stuff, WD -- now... I really want you to look at Nathan Knight, please. Hey, maybe you are busy! Working for a living! -- So, I know it's a favor. But, still... I like this kid, & I bet you might like him too!

[WizarDynasty]

Good stuff, WD -- now... I really want you to look at Nathan Knight, please. Hey, maybe you are busy! Working for a living! -- So, I know it's a favor. But, still... I like this kid, & I bet you might like him too!

Biggest problem with him is that he is slow footed. Bryant is already slow footed and doesn't show alot of burst an activity. Plods down the floor.
He doesn't have strong feet quick feet and hips. Needs alot more explosiveness in short space and he doesn't have that either. I like his coordination and if you slow the game down to half court in playoffs, he is a good guy to bring in but i just don't see him getting back on defense in a high up tempo offense. Wall and Beal are the center piece with Rui as third option. All are jump shooters so that means you need an explosive rebounder with high stamina that can get back on defense to make up for quick shots and fast break opportunities that the jumpshots create. Precious is still my number target fit for this team. HIgh energy, quick and explosive, with lost of upside, and great leg and hip bending ability and can still maintain explosiveness quickness with his hips and knees bent for long durations. I think he should be available at pick 9 since he has alot of work to do on his consistently shooting off the dribble. But his hip and knee bending and explosiveness are scotty pippen like.

[Dat2U]

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:

...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.

Hold yourself to the same standard sir. Are there methodologies for "interpreting" Wins Produced data? Because certainly stacking a lineup with the best rebounders at each position is no guarantee of success but hey as long as a player gets more rebounds & assists vs to's and missed shots, that's all that matters right? I seen some wonky statements come from you that literally no one would take seriously based on your fanaticism for adding up a players raw production.

Just b/c there's not enough evidence of the validity of on/off data for YOU doesn't mean it's not being used by many NBA teams to make decisions.

Obviously Bertans 3pt shooting is a big thing. What makes it even bigger is the willingness to let it fly and the unlimited range from the 4 spot. Otto could be a dead man walking out there on offense... and he was many times.. but his simple presence as a threat from 3 forced defenses to pay attention to him despite the passiveness. He constantly put up good on/off numbers simply for providing spacing and being a teammate that was willing to defer and make the extra pass. That's what I meant when I said the little things. Bertans can literally just stand 30 ft out and generate alot of attention. Logical thinking says the helps everyone else b/c it gives them more room to create. I'm sorry your unwilling to think beyond the simple counting stats measurements without the desired evidence you seek.

[WizarDynasty]

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:

...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.

Hold yourself to the same standard sir. Are there methodologies for "interpreting" Wins Produced data? Because certainly stacking a lineup with the best rebounders at each position is no guarantee of success but hey as long as a player gets more rebounds & assists vs to's and missed shots, that's all that matters right? I seen some wonky statements come from you that literally no one would take seriously based on your fanaticism for adding up a players raw production.

Just b/c there's not enough evidence of the validity of on/off data for YOU doesn't mean it's not being used by many NBA teams to make decisions.

Obviously Bertans 3pt shooting is a big thing. What makes it even bigger is the willingness to let it fly and the unlimited range from the 4 spot. Otto could be a dead man walking out there on offense... and he was many times.. but his simple presence as a threat from 3 forced defenses to pay attention to him despite the passiveness. He constantly put up good on/off numbers simply for providing spacing and being a teammate that was willing to defer and make the extra pass. That's what I meant when I said the little things. Bertans can literally just stand 30 ft out and generate alot of attention. Logical thinking says the helps everyone else b/c it gives them more room to create. I'm sorry your unwilling to think beyond the simple counting stats measurements without the desired evidence you seek.

Analytics can only take you so far. Bertans is not really a big man. He might be tall but he doesn't have big man traits which are superior rebounding and shot blocking, mismatch against undersized guards causing a defense to double team and creating weaknesses in the defense. Bertans is designed for players like michael jordan who iso and consistently beat their man and forces teams to double him. Hence michael jordan dominance is captured because it creates a wide open look for another player. Wizard's don't have dominant iso players that forces double teams in the post. Bertans production is tied to getting wide open looks based on double teaming a dominant offensive player on your team. Back with the spurs, Duncan was double team all the time, and hence he makes the team pay with bertans. This team does not have a dominant big that forces a double team everytime he touches the ball. The only way Bertan's production can be consistent, is if we can reliable force a double team on each possession. Beal and Wall are not dominant enough to force double teams.

Michael jordan can be considered a big because he shot close to .50 percent on high volume. Curry is close to big because he is scoring close 2000 points a season and his field goal percentage hovers close to .50. Beal is almost always .45 or lower. Wall is always lower .50. Rui might turn into a high volume scorer with high field goal percentage but that is about it. Beal and Wall are like joe and isaih thomas is they are healthy. but they had elite toughness and rebounding in their front court... dennis rodman, rick mahorn, bill laimbeer, ---- the wizard need to develop a front court that is the toughest in the league. Rui...not really tough so their work is cut out but they have to draft correctly and you start by drafting players with great hip and knee flexion, explosive feet, high motors, coordinated, with high defensive basketball iQ and energy. No slow plodders in your front court.

Curry and Klay were dominant because draymond green sets devastating picks, and is an explosive driver to the basket with elite handles for a powerforward. He could always create mismatch with whoever is guarding curry, take him down to the post and abuse him. If the guard fought over the screen, curry or even klay can pop a wide open three. Draymond is the reason why the three ball was deadly with the warriors. Bertans is not deadly with the ball against undersized guards in the post. Further more, draymond can not lock down anyone on the perimeter and excellent post defender, shot blocker, all around swiss army knife. Bertans is a 1 dimensional curry... he can shoot like him, but he can't shoot off the dribble consistently, he can force his defender to run into a pick and then shoot a high percentage three. Bertan needs to wait until beal or wall drives into the lane and dish out to him if his man sags to help. Otherwise, he is pretty useless. His production is directly tied to wall or beal creating double team.
I saw alot of Bertans just pulling up on fast break to shoot a three pointer. the numbers look good, but you can not rely on that type of game consistently. It catches teams off guard, but they tie a guard to bertan the entire game, bertan is basically a spot three point shooter that can be easily neutralized. Bertan has poor knee hip flexion, he can't maintain a low center of gravity offensively on a dribble and can't create easy buckets during clutch because of bad knees and hips. He is a bench player.

So again, back to begin... Bertan is not a big man, he doesn't alter shots and reduce field goal percentage, he can't consistently shoot over undersized guards. If he is wide open, he will drain a three pointer.. but if you place a point guard on him the entire game, he is neutralized, and further more, he will get roasted on defense by that same undersized guard that shadowed him on defense. Bertan is not a major piece unless you already have players that consistently get when getting into the paint and shoot a high field goal percentage with volume. So don't have a player that shoots a high field goal percentage with volume and shooting high field goal percentage with volume is very rare. 2000 point per season shooting 50 percent like a lebron, kevin garnett, tim duncan, michael jordan, anthony davis, giannis, aldrige, karl anthrony towns these players who can score above 50 percent on volume are very rare. Not even james harden, jimmy butler, luka,embiid,.-- there are alot of players who can score 2000 but only a few of them can score 2000 points shooting 50 percent or above. When you get one of these rare players, that's when Bertans value increases. In no way should we over value Bertans three points shooting without having an elite 2000 .50 shooter which is very and hard to get unless you are lebron and forcing anthony davis to play with on the lakers. Or we draft a diamond in teh rough like giannis in middle of the lottery.

there are

[DCZards]

Back with the spurs, Duncan was double team all the time, and hence he makes the team pay with bertans. This team does not have a dominant big that forces a double team everytime he touches the ball. The only way Bertan's production can be consistent, is if we can reliable force a double team on each possession. Beal and Wall are not dominant enough to force double teams.

With Wall out last season, Beal was the only Zards player that most opponents were really worried about on the offensive end. So he faced double teams just about every time he touched the ball. Bertan's was often the beneficiary of those double teams.

With Wall back breaking down defenses off-the-dribble and finding teammates in the open court, I expect Bertans (if he resigns) to get even more open looks.

[payitforward]

Good stuff, WD -- now... I really want you to look at Nathan Knight, please. Hey, maybe you are busy! Working for a living! -- So, I know it's a favor. But, still... I like this kid, & I bet you might like him too!

Biggest problem with him is that he is slow footed. Bryant is already slow footed and doesn't show alot of burst an activity. Plods down the floor.
He doesn't have strong feet quick feet and hips. Needs alot more explosiveness in short space and he doesn't have that either. I like his coordination and if you slow the game down to half court in playoffs, he is a good guy to bring in but i just don't see him getting back on defense in a high up tempo offense. Wall and Beal are the center piece with Rui as third option. All are jump shooters so that means you need an explosive rebounder with high stamina that can get back on defense to make up for quick shots and fast break opportunities that the jumpshots create....

I agree with this 1000% !!

... Precious is still my number target fit for this team. HIgh energy, quick and explosive, with lost of upside, and great leg and hip bending ability and can still maintain explosiveness quickness with his hips and knees bent for long durations. I think he should be available at pick 9 since he has alot of work to do on his consistently shooting off the dribble. But his hip and knee bending and explosiveness are scotty pippen like.

Hey, thanks for this, man!

Keep in mind that with Nathan Knight, we're talking about a kid who is obviously not a major prospect -- otherwise, why is he available undrafted, right? Similar with Woodard though not to the same extreme.

What you've written about Precious has made me more interested in him -- but, even with all that you like about him there are plenty of issues to look at & come away with doubt.

Here's a question (not to challenge you -- I'm just interested in learning more about what you think & how you think) -- where did you rate Brandon Clarke before the draft last year? If you didn't have him in the top 5 prospects in that draft (which doesn't mean that's where you'd take him, obviously, any more than you'd take Draymond that high -- you simply don't have to in order to get him), then maybe there's a reason to enlarge the way you're evaluating guys, since he was without question & by a huge amount the best rookie this season. Hell, he was one of the top ten PFs in the league altogether.

[WizarDynasty]

Brandon Clarrke, has really bad hips. He can't dribble for extended period of time and maitained fluid dribble and flexed hips and knees. He definitely can't slow and accelerate smoothly. He has a very low elbow on his jumpshot meaning that he can't shoot with touch. If your elbow is below your eye when you release the ball, then you are not a natural jumpshooter.
He is two foot jumper. He basically just jump as high as he can when playing defense inthe post. He doesn't have alot of core strength to move anyone around.
He's a tweener with bad knees, especially his right knee. He can hit the wide open shot when left alone, but his landing mechanics are aweful. He doesn't bend his hip and land backwards after release jumpshot and his elbow isn't above his eyesocket as he is rising for his jumpshot.
I would never have clarke in my starting line up is all i can say. Maybe if i had 4 allstars, and we were playing video game rules where you have to pick your fifth player and his rating couldn't be above rookie. But yes Clarke has bad knees, definitely can't change direction and maintain a dribble for an extended time with his knees and hips bent while dribbling. He has teh build of a lanky shooting guard, but he is not explosive while moving and changing directions while dribbling. So yeah i would pass on him if were drafting in a snake round my first 5 players. 32 teams times 5 players. He would not be in my top 150 players.
\Precious has alot of work, but his intangible elements that can't be taught, bending his knees and hips for an extended time while dribbling, low center of gravity, at 6'9 and still explosive and balanced, are things that can't be taught by coaches, and is something this team does not have at the forward spot. the key word is that he can flex his hips and knees for extended periods of time while dribbling and change directions explosively at his height is 6'9. that is perfect fit for wall, beal, and rui. Bryant is extremely slow footed, rui is about average. Even Onyeka is kinda of slow footed defensively on the perimeter and isn't a high energy rodman high energy "Piston's Bad Boys" type of front court player that this team needs.
You have to find 6'10 or longer players with great knee and hip bend ability. they are very hard to find.

[nate33]

Analytics can only take you so far. Bertans is not really a big man. He might be tall but he doesn't have big man traits which are superior rebounding and shot blocking, mismatch against undersized guards causing a defense to double team and creating weaknesses in the defense. Bertans is designed for players like michael jordan who iso and consistently beat their man and forces teams to double him. Hence michael jordan dominance is captured because it creates a wide open look for another player. Wizard's don't have dominant iso players that forces double teams in the post. Bertans production is tied to getting wide open looks based on double teaming a dominant offensive player on your team. Back with the spurs, Duncan was double team all the time, and hence he makes the team pay with bertans. This team does not have a dominant big that forces a double team everytime he touches the ball. The only way Bertan's production can be consistent, is if we can reliable force a double team on each possession. Beal and Wall are not dominant enough to force double teams.

I gotta disagree with this take. Bertans isn't just a stand-alone catch-and-shoot guy. He's not Kentavious Caldwell Pope or Gary Trent Jr. Those guys really do require that a teammate break down a defense and draw a double team if they want to get a shot up. Bertans is much more lethal. He can come off screens and shoot off-balance with a quick release and extreme range. He can pick and pop with an extremely quick, high release, making it near impossible to hedge off of him. He inverts the cause and effect. He doesn't require double teams to get a shot off. He draws off-ball double teams to enable his teammates to get easy buckets.

A good catch-and-shoot guy will shoot 38-40% on maybe 5-7 3PA's per 36 minutes. Bertans shoots 42% on a whopping 10.7 3PA's per 36 minutes. He shoots the 3rd most 3PA's attempts per 36 behind only Harden and Buddy Hield, but with way more accuracy. Bertans has massive off-ball gravity like Klay Thompson, Steph Curry, Duncan Robinson and prime J.J. Redick.

One can certainly criticize Bertans for being a limited defender and a poor rebounder, but he is a lethal offensive weapon.

[penbeast0]

Question, if Bertrans gets an Otto Porter type contract and the Wizards decide it's too high to match, would you sign Montrezl Harrell if he came in at 10 million a year or under?

(Sort of the exact opposite from Bertrans offensively)

[nate33]

Question, if Bertrans gets an Otto Porter type contract and the Wizards decide it's too high to match, would you sign Montrezl Harrell if he came in at 10 million a year or under?

(Sort of the exact opposite from Bertrans offensively)

No.

I think Harrell is fools gold. He is a high energy big man who outworks the opposition's 2nd unit big men in the regular season. But in the playoffs when teams actually game plan against him, it becomes obvious that he is merely a very short center with no outside shot. He can be contained offensively and he is a bad defender.

Also, undersized bigs that rely on energy and athleticism tend to have short careers. Those nagging injuries add up, and suddenly they're just ordinary, undersized players with no real quickness advantage.

Finally, if we invest in a big man to play the 18-24 minutes that Bryant doesn't play, I want that guy to be a plus defender.

[Ruzious]

Question, if Bertrans gets an Otto Porter type contract and the Wizards decide it's too high to match, would you sign Montrezl Harrell if he came in at 10 million a year or under?

(Sort of the exact opposite from Bertrans offensively)

No.

I think Harrell is fools gold. He is a high energy big man who outworks the opposition's 2nd unit big men in the regular season. But in the playoffs when teams actually game plan against him, it becomes obvious that he is merely a very short center with no outside shot. He can be contained offensively and he is a bad defender.

Also, undersized bigs that rely on energy and athleticism tend to have short careers. Those nagging injuries add up, and suddenly they're just ordinary, undersized players with no real quickness advantage.

Finally, if we invest in a big man to play the 18-24 minutes that Bryant doesn't play, I want that guy to be a plus defender.

Kenneth Faried is an example of an energy big that put up very good numbers against backups, but he couldn't find an NBA team that wanted him at age 30, he played 37 games the year before, and 32 the year before that. Always put up impressive stats per 36 minutes. Harrell's a little better scorer, but otherwise very similar.

[pcbothwel]

Question, if Bertrans gets an Otto Porter type contract and the Wizards decide it's too high to match, would you sign Montrezl Harrell if he came in at 10 million a year or under?

(Sort of the exact opposite from Bertrans offensively)

No.

I think Harrell is fools gold. He is a high energy big man who outworks the opposition's 2nd unit big men in the regular season. But in the playoffs when teams actually game plan against him, it becomes obvious that he is merely a very short center with no outside shot. He can be contained offensively and he is a bad defender.

Also, undersized bigs that rely on energy and athleticism tend to have short careers. Those nagging injuries add up, and suddenly they're just ordinary, undersized players with no real quickness advantage.

Finally, if we invest in a big man to play the 18-24 minutes that Bryant doesn't play, I want that guy to be a plus defender.

Agreed about Harrell, but no way does Bertans get that much.

Im not really thinking too much about FA sorta stuff (Draft only) until we know what the deal is with the cap. 109M? 100M?
Makes a HUGE difference. Bertans simply doesnt add enough wins for a team to put that type of money in considering the environment we are in. Between the unsure financial landscape, strong 2021 FA class and strong 2021 draft... I think many teams will look at 1 year deals.

The only two teams that have enough cap space and look like "Buyers" are the Hawks and Knicks. I just dont see teams paying the premium to get to .500/7th seed territory this summer.
Given his age, I could see him seeing a cheaper 2+1 deal with us in the 12-13M range that would allow him to align with Beals contract and hit FA in 2022 at 29 y/o and a much better FA environment.

[penbeast0]

I'd like to keep the Latvian Laser since I like Bertrans as long as his contract is reasonable; just looking for guys who might be undervalued and Harrell's style, playoffs, and subsequent complaints about special treatment for Kawhi might make him a player everyone shies away from.



Bertrans was one of those guys when we got him; what he did last year wasn't much of a surprise to me. Of course I was always a huge Steve Novak fanboy too . . . as Harrell is to Faried, Bertrans is to Novak.

[payitforward]

I see that my request that you not see me as being critical of you didn't work, huh?!?

For the record, there is no one here whose posts interest me more than yours, ok? Not being flattering, just being candid.

This is really the whole of my point:

...the only way to determine the utility of any way of "measuring productivity" ...is to figure out how well it correlates with actual wins and losses as compared to some other way....

I don't see how there's room to disagree with that, but... really... what difference does it make? Is it worth arguing about? Nah! As to:

...Just b/c there's not enough evidence of the validity of on/off data for YOU doesn't mean it's not being used by many NBA teams to make decisions....

I must have expressed myself badly -- obviously on/off data is well worth looking at.

Obviously Bertans 3pt shooting is a big thing. What makes it even bigger is the willingness to let it fly and the unlimited range from the 4 spot. Otto could be a dead man walking out there on offense... and he was many times.. but his simple presence as a threat from 3 forced defenses to pay attention to him despite the passiveness. He constantly put up good on/off numbers simply for providing spacing and being a teammate that was willing to defer and make the extra pass. That's what I meant when I said the little things. Bertans can literally just stand 30 ft out and generate alot of attention. Logical thinking says the helps everyone else b/c it gives them more room to create.

I don't disagree with any of this, Dat. How could I? Davis is an unbelievable 3-pt. shooter. Has there ever been anyone to put up his stellar % at the number of attempts he takes? I doubt it!

Nor would I deny that his presence creates spacing for others! Again... how could anyone deny this?

The problem is that he didn't make Brad a better shooter this year. & we went 24-40 before the bubble.

Now... maybe with both John & Brad on the floor with him, things will change. Yet... the biggest reason we were down 4.6 points a game to our opponents was that we were down 4.2 rebounds a game to our opponents. That's not all on Davis, of course! He only played 30 minutes a night, & he only played in 54 of the 64 games. But, it's still an issue. & he's part of that issue.

[doclinkin]

The problem is that he didn't make Brad a better shooter this year. & we went 24-40 before the bubble.

Except he did. Or leastways, even if their individual eFG% was break-even when paired with each other, with the two of them together the team was +2pts better per 100 possessions.

Now... maybe with both John & Brad on the floor with him, things will change. Yet... the biggest reason we were down 4.6 points a game to our opponents was that we were down 4.2 rebounds a game to our opponents.

Consider that pairing Beal with any other player the team was -4.7 points per 100. That's a 6.7 point swing for Beal. Even accounting for the fact that they scored 1.4 rebounds fewer when paired, it is clear Bertans was having a significant effect on how efficiently the team was scoring compared to their opponents. And in fact when you look at the Bertans 2-man pairings you can see that he raises the average of each of the teammates he was paired with, compared to how well or poorly they played with any other pairing. Not much, we were still a terrible team, but better than zero,and better than their pairing with almost any other player. Generally only Isaac Bonga raised the +/- better than Bertans in any two-man pairing.

You can do the same exercise with the Spurs the year before and see an even more pronounced effect.

[payitforward]

Brandon Clarrke, has really bad hips. He can't dribble for extended period of time and maitained fluid dribble and flexed hips and knees. He definitely can't slow and accelerate smoothly. He has a very low elbow on his jumpshot meaning that he can't shoot with touch. If your elbow is below your eye when you release the ball, then you are not a natural jumpshooter.
He is two foot jumper. He basically just jump as high as he can when playing defense inthe post. He doesn't have alot of core strength to move anyone around.
He's a tweener with bad knees, especially his right knee. He can hit the wide open shot when left alone, but his landing mechanics are aweful. He doesn't bend his hip and land backwards after release jumpshot and his elbow isn't above his eyesocket as he is rising for his jumpshot.
I would never have clarke in my starting line up is all i can say. Maybe if i had 4 allstars, and we were playing video game rules where you have to pick your fifth player and his rating couldn't be above rookie. But yes Clarke has bad knees, definitely can't change direction and maintain a dribble for an extended time with his knees and hips bent while dribbling. He has teh build of a lanky shooting guard, but he is not explosive while moving and changing directions while dribbling. So yeah i would pass on him if were drafting in a snake round my first 5 players. 32 teams times 5 players. He would not be in my top 150 players.
\Precious has alot of work, but his intangible elements that can't be taught, bending his knees and hips for an extended time while dribbling, low center of gravity, at 6'9 and still explosive and balanced, are things that can't be taught by coaches, and is something this team does not have at the forward spot. the key word is that he can flex his hips and knees for extended periods of time while dribbling and change directions explosively at his height is 6'9. that is perfect fit for wall, beal, and rui. Bryant is extremely slow footed, rui is about average. Even Onyeka is kinda of slow footed defensively on the perimeter and isn't a high energy rodman high energy "Piston's Bad Boys" type of front court player that this team needs.
You have to find 6'10 or longer players with great knee and hip bend ability. they are very hard to find.

This is interesting -- & because I think this is a serious discussion, I have to ask a serious question:

What do you do about the numbers Brandon Clarke put up as a rookie? Do you ignore them?

Because Clarke was, basically, better than average at nearly everything (down only by 1/2 an assist & 1/12 a steal per 40 minutes -- up, sometimes way up, in absolutely everything else), his overall productivity was comfortably in the top dozen Power Forwards in the league. As a rookie.

If you question that statement, take a look at the numbers & feel free to judge for yourself. But, per 40 minutes Clarke scored more points than an average PF, had a higher TS% than an average PF, did this on higher usage than an average PF, had a higher 2 pt. % than an average PF (way higher!), a higher 3 pt. % than an average PF, and a higher FT% than an average PF.

Clarke also turned the ball over less than an average PF. He got more defensive boards than an average PF, & more offensive boards than an average PF. He also blocked more shots than an average PF, & he fouled less than an average PF.

Given all that -- how does your assessment of his physical make-up integrate with those results? I do mean to be asking this seriously. Is it that his physical frame means that he will break down? I.e. that he can't last in the league because of his physical frame?

Is that your point? Or, if not that -- how are we to we look at his outstanding numbers?

[WizarDynasty]

Brandon Clarrke, has really bad hips. He can't dribble for extended period of time and maitained fluid dribble and flexed hips and knees. He definitely can't slow and accelerate smoothly. He has a very low elbow on his jumpshot meaning that he can't shoot with touch. If your elbow is below your eye when you release the ball, then you are not a natural jumpshooter.
He is two foot jumper. He basically just jump as high as he can when playing defense inthe post. He doesn't have alot of core strength to move anyone around.
He's a tweener with bad knees, especially his right knee. He can hit the wide open shot when left alone, but his landing mechanics are aweful. He doesn't bend his hip and land backwards after release jumpshot and his elbow isn't above his eyesocket as he is rising for his jumpshot.
I would never have clarke in my starting line up is all i can say. Maybe if i had 4 allstars, and we were playing video game rules where you have to pick your fifth player and his rating couldn't be above rookie. But yes Clarke has bad knees, definitely can't change direction and maintain a dribble for an extended time with his knees and hips bent while dribbling. He has teh build of a lanky shooting guard, but he is not explosive while moving and changing directions while dribbling. So yeah i would pass on him if were drafting in a snake round my first 5 players. 32 teams times 5 players. He would not be in my top 150 players.
\Precious has alot of work, but his intangible elements that can't be taught, bending his knees and hips for an extended time while dribbling, low center of gravity, at 6'9 and still explosive and balanced, are things that can't be taught by coaches, and is something this team does not have at the forward spot. the key word is that he can flex his hips and knees for extended periods of time while dribbling and change directions explosively at his height is 6'9. that is perfect fit for wall, beal, and rui. Bryant is extremely slow footed, rui is about average. Even Onyeka is kinda of slow footed defensively on the perimeter and isn't a high energy rodman high energy "Piston's Bad Boys" type of front court player that this team needs.
You have to find 6'10 or longer players with great knee and hip bend ability. they are very hard to find.

This is interesting -- & because I think this is a serious discussion, I have to ask a serious question:

What do you do about the numbers Brandon Clarke put up as a rookie? Do you ignore them?

Because Clarke was, basically, better than average at nearly everything (down only by 1/2 an assist & 1/12 a steal per 40 minutes -- up, sometimes way up, in absolutely everything else), his overall productivity was comfortably in the top dozen Power Forwards in the league. As a rookie.

If you question that statement, take a look at the numbers & feel free to judge for yourself. But, per 40 minutes Clarke scored more points than an average PF, had a higher TS% than an average PF, did this on higher usage than an average PF, had a higher 2 pt. % than an average PF (way higher!), a higher 3 pt. % than an average PF, and a higher FT% than an average PF.

Clarke also turned the ball over less than an average PF. He got more defensive boards than an average PF, & more offensive boards than an average PF. He also blocked more shots than an average PF, & he fouled less than an average PF.

Given all that -- how does your assessment of his physical make-up integrate with those results? I do mean to be asking this seriously. Is it that his physical frame means that he will break down? I.e. that he can't last in the league because of his physical frame?

Is that your point? Or, if not that -- how are we to we look at his outstanding numbers?

Show me a clip where I see with my eyes that he dominates starting caliber playoff powerforward offensively or defensively and it dramatically influence his team winning the game.

[payitforward]

The problem is that he didn't make Brad a better shooter this year. & we went 24-40 before the bubble.

Except he did. Or leastways, even if their individual eFG% was break-even when paired with each other, with the two of them together the team was +2pts better per 100 possessions.

Sorry, doc, but you've got this a bit wrong. Not being a wise-ass; just read the below.

That said, however, let's start by making it look better! Because, in fact, it's not that the team was 2 points better -- it's that it was 2 points better than the opponent over 100 possessions when Brad & Davis were on the floor together..

Unfortunately, this doesn't tell us anything about Bertans' effect on Beal -- nothing at all. OMG! How can PIF say that? He must be a fanatic. He hates Beal & Bertans! Nah....

Let me see if I can illustrate where you've gone wrong in a single simple example. Last season, i.e. 2018-19, Thomas Bryant had a tremendous season; OTOH, Bobby Portis was absolutely awful, while John Wall actually started the season strong & then went up & down, mostly down (tho he had a tremendous game vs. the Lakers, if you remember, just before he shut it down).

In Bryant's 2-man lineups last year, https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/b/bryanth01/lineups/2019, he was +7 with Bobby Portis & -5.2 with John Wall. I trust you are not going to tell me that Thomas Bryant made Bobby Portis a better player.

Now let's look at Davis -- https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/b/bertada01/lineups/2020 -- & you'll see where you went wrong. It's easy to do.

As you point out, the team was +2.0 vs. the opponent per 100 possessions when Davis was on the floor with Beal. For sure.

But, whoa!!, can you believe it!?!? -- we were +11.4 vs. our opponents per 100 possessions when Davis was on the floor with Ian Mahinmi !!

Wait a minute -- wow!!! -- we were + 8.4 when he was in the game with Isaac Bonga!

These numbers must mean that Bertans made Ian Mahinmi & Isaac Bonga a whole humongous, ginormous lot better... right?

Yet... uh oh! We were down -3.8 points when Davis was on the floor with Rui Hachimura. Does this mean that Davis Bertans made poor Rui a whole lot worse. That's not very nice, do you think?

As in these 3 cases, such numbers also tell us nothing directly about Davis' effect on Brad, nor about the effect on winning games of that +2.0 with Brad.

The +2.0 number is per 100 possessions, so it doesn't reflect how many minutes of play it takes different lineups to get to 100 offensive possessions.

For example, a poor rebounding lineup will have fewer possessions per game (48 minutes). In that case, it takes more minutes to get to 100 possessions. Thus, per 100 possessions isn't telling you the effect of the lineup on scoring per game (or per 40 minutes).

In fact, +2.0 per 100 possessions is probably more like +1.5 per 48 minutes Davis is on the floor. But, since Davis played @30 minutes per game, that would be more like 1 point. Except that Davis & Beal only played together 20 minutes a game, & that's what is being measured here, so we'll have to make that .667 points a game.

Consider that pairing Beal with any other player the team was -4.7 points per 100....

No. What that says is this:

Overall, with Bradley Beal on the floor, the Washington Wizards were down -4.7 points to their opponents per 100 possessions.

But, the Bertans version of that page says this:

Overall, with Davis Bertans on the floor, the Washington Wizards were down -.3 points to their opponents per 100 possessions.

Does that mean that Davis Bertans is a whole lot better player than Bradley Beal? You tell me.

Nah, I didn't think so. Thus, the whole shebang to follow...

That's a 6.7 point swing for Beal. Even accounting for the fact that they scored 1.4 rebounds fewer when paired, it is clear Bertans was having a significant effect on how efficiently the team was scoring compared to their opponents. And in fact when you look at the Bertans 2-man pairings you can see that he raises the average of each of the teammates he was paired with, compared to how well or poorly they played with any other pairing. Not much, we were still a terrible team, but better than zero, and better than their pairing with almost any other player. Generally only Isaac Bonga raised the +/- better than Bertans in any to-man pairing.

...misinterprets the data, finding information there that isn't contained in it, & concluding "knowledge" out of it that simply isn't the case.

In fact, you've given me a perfect illustration of what I meant in my post directed to Dat, when I wrote that one needs to use care when going from data > information > knowledge.

Now... I don't mean this to initiate an argument -- it's time to cool things off not heat them up -- & I have to hope I've explained this clearly enough that it can be understood.

[nate33]

The problem is that he didn't make Brad a better shooter this year. & we went 24-40 before the bubble.

Except he did. Or leastways, even if their individual eFG% was break-even when paired with each other, with the two of them together the team was +2pts better per 100 possessions.

Sorry, doc, but you've got this a bit wrong. Not being a wise-ass; just read the below.

That said, however, let's start by making it look better! Because, in fact, it's not that the team was 2 points better -- it's that it was 2 points better than the opponent over 100 possessions when Brad & Davis were on the floor together..

Unfortunately, this doesn't tell us anything about Bertans' effect on Beal -- nothing at all. OMG! How can PIF say that? He must be a fanatic. He hates Beal & Bertans! Nah....

Spoiler:

Let me see if I can illustrate where you've gone wrong in a single simple example. Last season, i.e. 2018-19, Thomas Bryant had a tremendous season; OTOH, Bobby Portis was absolutely awful, while John Wall actually started the season strong & then went up & down, mostly down (tho he had a tremendous game vs. the Lakers, if you remember, just before he shut it down).

In Bryant's 2-man lineups last year, https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/b/bryanth01/lineups/2019, he was +7 with Bobby Portis & -5.2 with John Wall. I trust you are not going to tell me that Thomas Bryant made Bobby Portis a better player.

Now let's look at Davis -- https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/b/bertada01/lineups/2020 -- & you'll see where you went wrong. It's easy to do.

As you point out, the team was +2.0 vs. the opponent per 100 possessions when Davis was on the floor with Beal. For sure.

But, whoa!!, can you believe it!?!? -- we were +11.4 vs. our opponents per 100 possessions when Davis was on the floor with Ian Mahinmi !!

Wait a minute -- wow!!! -- we were + 8.4 when he was in the game with Isaac Bonga!

These numbers must mean that Bertans made Ian Mahinmi & Isaac Bonga a whole humongous, ginormous lot better... right?

Yet... uh oh! We were down -3.8 points when Davis was on the floor with Rui Hachimura. Does this mean that Davis Bertans made poor Rui a whole lot worse. That's not very nice, do you think?

As in these 3 cases, such numbers also tell us nothing directly about Davis' effect on Brad, nor about the effect on winning games of that +2.0 with Brad.

The +2.0 number is per 100 possessions, so it doesn't reflect how many minutes of play it takes different lineups to get to 100 offensive possessions.

For example, a poor rebounding lineup will have fewer possessions per game (48 minutes). In that case, it takes more minutes to get to 100 possessions. Thus, per 100 possessions isn't telling you the effect of the lineup on scoring per game (or per 40 minutes).

In fact, +2.0 per 100 possessions is probably more like +1.5 per 48 minutes Davis is on the floor. But, since Davis played @30 minutes per game, that would be more like 1 point. Except that Davis & Beal only played together 20 minutes a game, & that's what is being measured here, so we'll have to make that .667 points a game.

Consider that pairing Beal with any other player the team was -4.7 points per 100....

No. What that says is this:

Overall, with Bradley Beal on the floor, the Washington Wizards were down -4.7 points to their opponents per 100 possessions.

But, the Bertans version of that page says this:

Overall, with Davis Bertans on the floor, the Washington Wizards were down -.3 points to their opponents per 100 possessions.

Does that mean that Davis Bertans is a whole lot better player than Bradley Beal? You tell me.

Nah, I didn't think so. Thus, the whole shebang to follow...

That's a 6.7 point swing for Beal. Even accounting for the fact that they scored 1.4 rebounds fewer when paired, it is clear Bertans was having a significant effect on how efficiently the team was scoring compared to their opponents. And in fact when you look at the Bertans 2-man pairings you can see that he raises the average of each of the teammates he was paired with, compared to how well or poorly they played with any other pairing. Not much, we were still a terrible team, but better than zero, and better than their pairing with almost any other player. Generally only Isaac Bonga raised the +/- better than Bertans in any to-man pairing.

...misinterprets the data, finding information there that isn't contained in it, & concluding "knowledge" out of it that simply isn't the case.

In fact, you've given me a perfect illustration of what I meant in my post directed to Dat, when I wrote that one needs to use care when going from data > information > knowledge.

Now... I don't mean this to initiate an argument -- it's time to cool things off not heat them up -- & I have to hope I've explained this clearly enough that it can be understood.

Sorry PIF, but I think you are looking at this wrong.

If you want to use player pairs data to analyze Bertans, you don't use Bertans' 2-man player combinations, you look at the other players he plays with.

For example, when Beal plays alongside Bertans, the team on/off differential is better than when he plays alongside anyone else.

The same holds true for Ish Smith (ignoring low minute guys).

And Bertans is the best player to pair alongside Isaac Bonga by a country mile.

The Hachimura/Bertans combo is the 2nd best 2-man combo involving Hachimura (the best being Bonga).

Likewise, the Brown/Bertans combo is the 2nd best combo involving Brown (again Bonga is best).

And he's the 2nd best guy to pair with Bryant as well (ignoring combos that played less than 200 minutes).