ImageImageImageImageImage

Official Trade Thread -- Part XL

Moderators: montestewart, LyricalRico, nate33

User avatar
Dat2U
RealGM
Posts: 22,106
And1: 5,480
Joined: Jun 23, 2001
Location: Columbus, OH
       

Re: Official Trade Thread -- Part XL 

Post#1601 » by Dat2U » Sat Apr 24, 2021 3:15 pm

payitforward wrote:
9 and 20 wrote:Payitforward, I agree with just about all of what you wrote....

Only in this case, or as a matter of principle? :)

9 and 20 wrote:...on Bryant, ...I just don't think his offensive output on paper matches his on-court, team-related output....

Can't let that pass, sorry. We are comparing the impact on their teams' ability to win games -- of what players do on the floor not on paper. & it's perfectly easy to understand what wins basketball games.
Spoiler:
To win a game, either you score more efficiently than the opponent or you get yourself more chances to score (more possessions) than the opponent.

That's it. Nothing else. Do both, & you cannot lose. Do neither, & you cannot win. Do one or the other, & you have a chance to win.

Moreover, the effect of, for example, a defensive rebound on the above can be & has been measured.
Then there's the effect on that of defense vs. offense
Spoiler:
In basketball -- unlike football & baseball for example -- defense & offense are linked dynamically & not easily separated. E.g. steals on defense result in high % offensive opportunities for your team. OTOH, giving the other team a basket on defense & then taking the ball out to start your offense results in the lowest % offensive possessions.

This also works the other way of course. Make a bucket, & the opponent has to take the ball out under his own basket -- you're more likely to defend that possession successfully than one in which you give your opponent a defensive rebound or (worse yet) a steal.

Thus, in basketball, an excellent offensive player is helping your defense -- even though that help doesn't show up on his own numbers. Conversely, an excellent defensive player is helping your offense.

At the level of individual-player skills, of course it's ideal for a guy at any position to be great on individual & team offense & on individual & team defense. It happens, but it's rare.
9 and 20 wrote:...I don't think, for example, the Pacers would trade Myles Turner for Bryant.

Well, the debate about Bryant has been ongoing since we picked him up. & the comparison/contrast of him & Myles Turner has also been a long-term subject here. People have arrived at their own personal conclusions -- by & large not subject to change! Here's my view:
Spoiler:
IMO, Myles Turner is over-rated. IMO, Thomas Bryant is under-rated. To tell the truth, I wouldn't trade Bryant for Turner straight up! I'm aware that puts me in a minority. &, of course, Bryant has now had a significant injury, which I'm leaving out of the picture.

Turner's biggest defensive skill is blocking shots. People absolutely love to see blocked shots. It's exciting, it's super-athletic, it's super-visible (unlike any number of other good things a player can do). Blocks get shown in highlight reels or on ESPN.

In a way, a block is the defensive equivalent of a dunk: people love dunks. But... a dunk is worth 2 points, period, it provides no more help winning a game than does an open midrange shot that people barely notice.

It's the same with blocked shots: almost all blocks go out of bounds, whereupon your opponent takes the ball out under your basket. You haven't had a big effect on the efficiency of that particular possession for the opponent. Some, to be sure. But overall a blocked shot is no more impactful than a defensive rebound.

Thus, because per 40 minutes last year Bryant & Turner had the same number of defensive boards + blocked shots, we'd have to look elsewhere for a reason to call Turner a better player. Yet, overall, looking at the rest of all the two players' numbers, Bryant is by far the better player.

&, if you want to say, for example, "Bryant is slower of foot than Turner, so he's not as good an individual defender," then you're going to have to listen to me say "Bryant got almost twice as many offensive boards as Turner, & Bryant had 84% more assists than Turner, & Bryant scored almost 30% more points than Turner -- at a TS% of 64.9% vs. Turner's 56.6%.

Not to mention that Turner is paid 2.2 times the money we pay Bryant.


You still choose ignore the impact a C has on the defensive side of the ball and continue to point to your beloved rebounding stats to prove it must not really matter. You can repeat the same nonsense over and over again but it still doesn't make you right. A center is the last line of defense. His on-court impact is significantly tied to his ability to deter or challenge shots.... and it's significantly more important than grabbing an extra rebound or two a game.

I'm not making a Bryant vs Turner argument because I agree that Turner is overpaid but this is more about Bryant not being our long term answer there.
miller31time
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 27,177
And1: 1,659
Joined: Jul 25, 2005
Location: Baltimore, MD
     

Re: Official Trade Thread -- Part XL 

Post#1602 » by miller31time » Sat Apr 24, 2021 3:44 pm

Dat2U wrote:You still choose ignore the impact a C has on the defensive side of the ball and continue to point to your beloved rebounding stats to prove it must not really matter. You can repeat the same nonsense over and over again but it still doesn't make you right. A center is the last line of defense. His on-court impact is significantly tied to his ability to deter or challenge shots.... and it's significantly more important than grabbing an extra rebound or two a game.

I'm not making a Bryant vs Turner argument because I agree that Turner is overpaid but this is more about Bryant not being our long term answer there.


Agreed. I look at yesterday’s game as a perfect example. We played a terrible, depleted team that was able to play us close most of the game because they pick and rolled us to death and our centers (minus Gafford on occasion) couldn’t get to the rim to contest the drive. They were out of position most of the time, and couldn’t vertically contest the layup without fouling.

They weren’t running any complicated or intricate offensive scheme. They hung with us because we didn’t have a basic need for any good team - interior defense. Plain and simple.
CntOutSmrtCrazy
Starter
Posts: 2,215
And1: 587
Joined: Dec 08, 2011
Location: Formerly known as GilArenas88

Re: Official Trade Thread -- Part XL 

Post#1604 » by CntOutSmrtCrazy » Sat Apr 24, 2021 5:55 pm

nate33 wrote:
CntOutSmrtCrazy wrote:And that’s fine, I think he could feast off of subs and provide I nice kick off the bench I just don’t see him as a starter and we’ve been gifted Gafford. All I know is Bryant’s entire stint here we’ve been atrocious defensively and we’ve had a terrible record some of which has to do with having a gaping hole defensively at center. As far as the offense go, sure Bryant has got some talent but I’m not convinced his absence is what really has tanked our offensive efficiency.

I’d point more so towards to this team’s knack for absurdly bad turnovers (it’s not just Russ either and I put a lot of the blame of Brook’s on this because he’s too much of a veterans coach to hold people accountable), that our forwards are giving us little in the way of consistent offensive production, Brook’s insisting on giving players like Jerome Robinson or Ish Smith the green light because he thinks they’re “The Microwave” reincarnate, Brook’s penchant to not play Matthews, and basically anything else you can think of regarding Brook’s coaching philosophy.

We had Brooks last year too. And last year our forwards were worse offensively with Rui a rookie and Bonga in place of Avdija. I suppose one could argue that Westbrook was worse than Thomas/Napier on offense, but I think the bigger difference was the lack of production at center and more importantly, the lack of spacing.


So nate, you're telling me you truly believe the absence of Bryant is what has tanked our offensive efficiency? Was he that valuable of a stretch big? I mean it's possible I guess, I just don't think so though. I think the team in general has a flawed offensive philosophy. With any sort of discipline from the coaching, this team has offensive potential,
User avatar
nate33
Forum Mod - Wizards
Forum Mod - Wizards
Posts: 59,696
And1: 12,382
Joined: Oct 28, 2002

Re: Official Trade Thread -- Part XL 

Post#1605 » by nate33 » Sat Apr 24, 2021 6:35 pm

CntOutSmrtCrazy wrote:
nate33 wrote:
CntOutSmrtCrazy wrote:And that’s fine, I think he could feast off of subs and provide I nice kick off the bench I just don’t see him as a starter and we’ve been gifted Gafford. All I know is Bryant’s entire stint here we’ve been atrocious defensively and we’ve had a terrible record some of which has to do with having a gaping hole defensively at center. As far as the offense go, sure Bryant has got some talent but I’m not convinced his absence is what really has tanked our offensive efficiency.

I’d point more so towards to this team’s knack for absurdly bad turnovers (it’s not just Russ either and I put a lot of the blame of Brook’s on this because he’s too much of a veterans coach to hold people accountable), that our forwards are giving us little in the way of consistent offensive production, Brook’s insisting on giving players like Jerome Robinson or Ish Smith the green light because he thinks they’re “The Microwave” reincarnate, Brook’s penchant to not play Matthews, and basically anything else you can think of regarding Brook’s coaching philosophy.

We had Brooks last year too. And last year our forwards were worse offensively with Rui a rookie and Bonga in place of Avdija. I suppose one could argue that Westbrook was worse than Thomas/Napier on offense, but I think the bigger difference was the lack of production at center and more importantly, the lack of spacing.


So nate, you're telling me you truly believe the absence of Bryant is what has tanked our offensive efficiency? Was he that valuable of a stretch big? I mean it's possible I guess, I just don't think so though. I think the team in general has a flawed offensive philosophy. With any sort of discipline from the coaching, this team has offensive potential,

I really do think he was a big component. Not just because he posted highly efficient numbers. It was his perimeter skills that opened up the paint for Beal to drive the lane. It also boosted our offensive rebounding by dragging the opposition's best rebounder out onto the perimeter.

Check out Beal's shooting numbers last year versus this year.

Image

Last year, he got all the way to the rim on 24% of his shots, this time it's down to 16.6%. And last year he made 69% of his attempts at the rim, this year it's down to 65%. That's because there's always a big man in the way. If Beal hadn't made any absolutely ridiculous improvement in shooting floaters and short fadeaways (the 3-10 feet range), he would be having a worse season than last year. (As an aside, we really should all stop and marvel at Beal's shooting from floater range. I don't think I've ever seen a guard shoot 25% of his shots in the 3-10 foot range and make over 55% of them. That's truly remarkable.)
9 and 20
Sophomore
Posts: 128
And1: 60
Joined: Mar 28, 2021
 

Re: Official Trade Thread -- Part XL 

Post#1606 » by 9 and 20 » Sun Apr 25, 2021 2:39 am

Dat2U wrote:
payitforward wrote:
9 and 20 wrote:Payitforward, I agree with just about all of what you wrote....

Only in this case, or as a matter of principle? :)

9 and 20 wrote:...on Bryant, ...I just don't think his offensive output on paper matches his on-court, team-related output....

Can't let that pass, sorry. We are comparing the impact on their teams' ability to win games -- of what players do on the floor not on paper. & it's perfectly easy to understand what wins basketball games.
Spoiler:
To win a game, either you score more efficiently than the opponent or you get yourself more chances to score (more possessions) than the opponent.

That's it. Nothing else. Do both, & you cannot lose. Do neither, & you cannot win. Do one or the other, & you have a chance to win.

Moreover, the effect of, for example, a defensive rebound on the above can be & has been measured.
Then there's the effect on that of defense vs. offense
Spoiler:
In basketball -- unlike football & baseball for example -- defense & offense are linked dynamically & not easily separated. E.g. steals on defense result in high % offensive opportunities for your team. OTOH, giving the other team a basket on defense & then taking the ball out to start your offense results in the lowest % offensive possessions.

This also works the other way of course. Make a bucket, & the opponent has to take the ball out under his own basket -- you're more likely to defend that possession successfully than one in which you give your opponent a defensive rebound or (worse yet) a steal.

Thus, in basketball, an excellent offensive player is helping your defense -- even though that help doesn't show up on his own numbers. Conversely, an excellent defensive player is helping your offense.

At the level of individual-player skills, of course it's ideal for a guy at any position to be great on individual & team offense & on individual & team defense. It happens, but it's rare.
9 and 20 wrote:...I don't think, for example, the Pacers would trade Myles Turner for Bryant.

Well, the debate about Bryant has been ongoing since we picked him up. & the comparison/contrast of him & Myles Turner has also been a long-term subject here. People have arrived at their own personal conclusions -- by & large not subject to change! Here's my view:
Spoiler:
IMO, Myles Turner is over-rated. IMO, Thomas Bryant is under-rated. To tell the truth, I wouldn't trade Bryant for Turner straight up! I'm aware that puts me in a minority. &, of course, Bryant has now had a significant injury, which I'm leaving out of the picture.

Turner's biggest defensive skill is blocking shots. People absolutely love to see blocked shots. It's exciting, it's super-athletic, it's super-visible (unlike any number of other good things a player can do). Blocks get shown in highlight reels or on ESPN.

In a way, a block is the defensive equivalent of a dunk: people love dunks. But... a dunk is worth 2 points, period, it provides no more help winning a game than does an open midrange shot that people barely notice.

It's the same with blocked shots: almost all blocks go out of bounds, whereupon your opponent takes the ball out under your basket. You haven't had a big effect on the efficiency of that particular possession for the opponent. Some, to be sure. But overall a blocked shot is no more impactful than a defensive rebound.

Thus, because per 40 minutes last year Bryant & Turner had the same number of defensive boards + blocked shots, we'd have to look elsewhere for a reason to call Turner a better player. Yet, overall, looking at the rest of all the two players' numbers, Bryant is by far the better player.

&, if you want to say, for example, "Bryant is slower of foot than Turner, so he's not as good an individual defender," then you're going to have to listen to me say "Bryant got almost twice as many offensive boards as Turner, & Bryant had 84% more assists than Turner, & Bryant scored almost 30% more points than Turner -- at a TS% of 64.9% vs. Turner's 56.6%.

Not to mention that Turner is paid 2.2 times the money we pay Bryant.


You still choose ignore the impact a C has on the defensive side of the ball and continue to point to your beloved rebounding stats to prove it must not really matter. You can repeat the same nonsense over and over again but it still doesn't make you right. A center is the last line of defense. His on-court impact is significantly tied to his ability to deter or challenge shots.... and it's significantly more important than grabbing an extra rebound or two a game.

I'm not making a Bryant vs Turner argument because I agree that Turner is overpaid but this is more about Bryant not being our long term answer there.


Basically, this is what I'm trying to say - comparing individual stats for C's doesn't really work - pts, rebounds, assists, whatever. What matters most, I think, is their ability to impact team defense. Maybe not Jokic, but that might be the only exception since he's just that good. I didn't mention blocked shots at all - James Wiseman blocks a lot of shots but almost nobody would say he's a good defender right now.
Can't say I do.
9 and 20
Sophomore
Posts: 128
And1: 60
Joined: Mar 28, 2021
 

Re: Official Trade Thread -- Part XL 

Post#1607 » by 9 and 20 » Sun Apr 25, 2021 2:46 am

nate33 wrote:
CntOutSmrtCrazy wrote:
nate33 wrote:We had Brooks last year too. And last year our forwards were worse offensively with Rui a rookie and Bonga in place of Avdija. I suppose one could argue that Westbrook was worse than Thomas/Napier on offense, but I think the bigger difference was the lack of production at center and more importantly, the lack of spacing.


So nate, you're telling me you truly believe the absence of Bryant is what has tanked our offensive efficiency? Was he that valuable of a stretch big? I mean it's possible I guess, I just don't think so though. I think the team in general has a flawed offensive philosophy. With any sort of discipline from the coaching, this team has offensive potential,

I really do think he was a big component. Not just because he posted highly efficient numbers. It was his perimeter skills that opened up the paint for Beal to drive the lane. It also boosted our offensive rebounding by dragging the opposition's best rebounder out onto the perimeter.

Check out Beal's shooting numbers last year versus this year.

Image

Last year, he got all the way to the rim on 24% of his shots, this time it's down to 16.6%. And last year he made 69% of his attempts at the rim, this year it's down to 65%. That's because there's always a big man in the way. If Beal hadn't made any absolutely ridiculous improvement in shooting floaters and short fadeaways (the 3-10 feet range), he would be having a worse season than last year. (As an aside, we really should all stop and marvel at Beal's shooting from floater range. I don't think I've ever seen a guard shoot 25% of his shots in the 3-10 foot range and make over 55% of them. That's truly remarkable.)


I call this the Pasecniks effect (not really).

What's crazy to me about Beal is the relative lack of 3 pointers. He used to be solidly in the mid-30s and now less than 30% of his shots are 3's.

The way Beal plays may have a lot to do with having Westbrook - probably at least as much as the presence of Bryant.
Can't say I do.
Ruzious
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 44,174
And1: 8,883
Joined: Jul 17, 2001
       

Re: Official Trade Thread -- Part XL 

Post#1608 » by Ruzious » Sun Apr 25, 2021 11:46 am

gambitx777 wrote:https://www.bulletsforever.com/platform/amp/2021/4/23/22396866/washington-wizards-small-forwards-free-agents-glenn-robinson-demarre-carroll-gerald-green-sam-dekker

Sent from my SM-G965U1 using RealGM mobile app

Dekker makes sense to me. Tbh, none of the others do.
"Look, you never know when you may need to borrow a cup of sugar, maybe some milk or a handgun" - Dan C. from Texas
payitforward
RealGM
Posts: 16,086
And1: 5,135
Joined: May 02, 2012
Location: On the Atlantic

Re: Official Trade Thread -- Part XL 

Post#1609 » by payitforward » Sun Apr 25, 2021 12:48 pm

Dat2U wrote:
payitforward wrote:
9 and 20 wrote:Payitforward, I agree with just about all of what you wrote....

Only in this case, or as a matter of principle? :)

9 and 20 wrote:...on Bryant, ...I just don't think his offensive output on paper matches his on-court, team-related output....

Can't let that pass, sorry. We are comparing the impact on their teams' ability to win games -- of what players do on the floor not on paper. & it's perfectly easy to understand what wins basketball games.
Spoiler:
To win a game, either you score more efficiently than the opponent or you get yourself more chances to score (more possessions) than the opponent.

That's it. Nothing else. Do both, & you cannot lose. Do neither, & you cannot win. Do one or the other, & you have a chance to win.

Moreover, the effect of, for example, a defensive rebound on the above can be & has been measured.
Then there's the effect on that of defense vs. offense
Spoiler:
In basketball -- unlike football & baseball for example -- defense & offense are linked dynamically & not easily separated. E.g. steals on defense result in high % offensive opportunities for your team. OTOH, giving the other team a basket on defense & then taking the ball out to start your offense results in the lowest % offensive possessions.

This also works the other way of course. Make a bucket, & the opponent has to take the ball out under his own basket -- you're more likely to defend that possession successfully than one in which you give your opponent a defensive rebound or (worse yet) a steal.

Thus, in basketball, an excellent offensive player is helping your defense -- even though that help doesn't show up on his own numbers. Conversely, an excellent defensive player is helping your offense.

At the level of individual-player skills, of course it's ideal for a guy at any position to be great on individual & team offense & on individual & team defense. It happens, but it's rare.
9 and 20 wrote:...I don't think, for example, the Pacers would trade Myles Turner for Bryant.

Well, the debate about Bryant has been ongoing since we picked him up. & the comparison/contrast of him & Myles Turner has also been a long-term subject here. People have arrived at their own personal conclusions -- by & large not subject to change! Here's my view:
Spoiler:
IMO, Myles Turner is over-rated. IMO, Thomas Bryant is under-rated. To tell the truth, I wouldn't trade Bryant for Turner straight up! I'm aware that puts me in a minority. &, of course, Bryant has now had a significant injury, which I'm leaving out of the picture.

Turner's biggest defensive skill is blocking shots. People absolutely love to see blocked shots. It's exciting, it's super-athletic, it's super-visible (unlike any number of other good things a player can do). Blocks get shown in highlight reels or on ESPN.

In a way, a block is the defensive equivalent of a dunk: people love dunks. But... a dunk is worth 2 points, period, it provides no more help winning a game than does an open midrange shot that people barely notice.

It's the same with blocked shots: almost all blocks go out of bounds, whereupon your opponent takes the ball out under your basket. You haven't had a big effect on the efficiency of that particular possession for the opponent. Some, to be sure. But overall a blocked shot is no more impactful than a defensive rebound.

Thus, because per 40 minutes last year Bryant & Turner had the same number of defensive boards + blocked shots, we'd have to look elsewhere for a reason to call Turner a better player. Yet, overall, looking at the rest of all the two players' numbers, Bryant is by far the better player.

&, if you want to say, for example, "Bryant is slower of foot than Turner, so he's not as good an individual defender," then you're going to have to listen to me say "Bryant got almost twice as many offensive boards as Turner, & Bryant had 84% more assists than Turner, & Bryant scored almost 30% more points than Turner -- at a TS% of 64.9% vs. Turner's 56.6%.

Not to mention that Turner is paid 2.2 times the money we pay Bryant.

You still choose ignore the impact a C has on the defensive side of the ball and continue to point to your beloved rebounding stats to prove it must not really matter. ...A center is the last line of defense. His on-court impact is significantly tied to his ability to deter or challenge shots....

This is an outstanding & completely relevant response to what I wrote, dat. That is, it is correct about basketball. But, it's incorrect about me! I do not "ignore" the defensive impact you describe (or the vast range of possible forms of "impact" that cannot be captured in an image as coarse-grained as the one we get from box score stats). &, obviously, it's especially hard to quantify the impact of something a player does if the result is to prevent something else from happening! It's really hard to quantify something that doesn't happen! Yet, that doesn't make it unimportant! You are right that it is extremely important.

IOW, I agree entirely with what you write. Got it? It's true. You are correct. Claro? Good. Now, consider this: two years ago, we won a close game in which Thomas Bryant went 14-14 from the floor. Did he help us win that game, Dat? Yes or no?

The answer is obvious. In other words, what you wrote above doesn't make scoring efficiency irrelevant. & it doesn't make getting more rebounds irrelevant either! Or, to put it the way I did in the post you criticize:
payitforward wrote:...if you want to say, for example, "Bryant is slower of foot than Turner, so he's not as good an individual defender," then you're going to have to listen to me say "Bryant got almost twice as many offensive boards as Turner, & Bryant had 84% more assists than Turner, & Bryant scored almost 30% more points than Turner -- at a TS% of 64.9% vs. Turner's 56.6%.

It would be ridiculous to imagine that those things have no weight in a discussion of Bryant! Or of Bryant vs. Turner. &, in fact, you agree:
Dat2U wrote:...I'm not making a Bryant vs Turner argument because I agree that Turner is overpaid....

Yes, that was my point. The claim was that Indiana wouldn't trade Turner for Bryant. My response was that I wouldn't trade Bryant for Turner! -- because Turner is overpaid!

As to...
Dat2U wrote:...this is more about Bryant not being our long term answer there (i.e. at Center).

...that's a totally different question! In fact, it's a totally unrelated question!

Now, I probably don't exactly believe in the concept of "long-term answer." A basketball team isn't a painting. You don't let the paint dry; you are constantly changing the team. But, leaving that aside, I'm happy to agree with you: Thomas Bryant is far from perfect.

He is, however, outstanding value for the $$ he is paid, & in a capped league the way you build a good team is to get a maximum number of guys who deliver more than most guys paid their salaries. To put that another way: if you don't get a lot of those guys, you will never have a good team.
Remember -- if you don't like the post above: blame Doc not me.
payitforward
RealGM
Posts: 16,086
And1: 5,135
Joined: May 02, 2012
Location: On the Atlantic

Re: Official Trade Thread -- Part XL 

Post#1610 » by payitforward » Sun Apr 25, 2021 3:26 pm

9 and 20 wrote:
Dat2U wrote:...the impact a C has on the defensive side of the ball.... A center is the last line of defense. His on-court impact is significantly tied to his ability to deter or challenge shots....


Basically, this is what I'm trying to say - comparing individual stats for C's doesn't really work - pts, rebounds, assists, whatever. What matters most, I think, is their ability to impact team defense. Maybe not Jokic, but that might be the only exception since he's just that good. I didn't mention blocked shots at all - James Wiseman blocks a lot of shots but almost nobody would say he's a good defender right now.

Read my response to Dat. His points are totally valid. As far as they go -- which is not the whole way.

Everything counts.

Think about it: Thomas Bryant, the exact player, with a lower TS% and/or fewer rebounds is not as good a player as Thomas Bryant with a higher TS% & more rebounds.

The moment you deny this you enter never-never-land where how good a player is depends entirely on what I see when I watch players, because I understand things that you don't understand.
Remember -- if you don't like the post above: blame Doc not me.
User avatar
nate33
Forum Mod - Wizards
Forum Mod - Wizards
Posts: 59,696
And1: 12,382
Joined: Oct 28, 2002

Re: Official Trade Thread -- Part XL 

Post#1611 » by nate33 » Sun Apr 25, 2021 3:56 pm

Ruzious wrote:
gambitx777 wrote:https://www.bulletsforever.com/platform/amp/2021/4/23/22396866/washington-wizards-small-forwards-free-agents-glenn-robinson-demarre-carroll-gerald-green-sam-dekker

Sent from my SM-G965U1 using RealGM mobile app

Dekker makes sense to me. Tbh, none of the others do.

Dekker or McRae.

I would really like to see Dekker one more time. He was just a 3-point shot away from being a fine role player.
User avatar
gambitx777
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,776
And1: 686
Joined: Dec 18, 2012

Re: Official Trade Thread -- Part XL 

Post#1612 » by gambitx777 » Sun Apr 25, 2021 4:05 pm

I would love to bring dekker back .
nate33 wrote:
Ruzious wrote:
gambitx777 wrote:https://www.bulletsforever.com/platform/amp/2021/4/23/22396866/washington-wizards-small-forwards-free-agents-glenn-robinson-demarre-carroll-gerald-green-sam-dekker

Sent from my SM-G965U1 using RealGM mobile app

Dekker makes sense to me. Tbh, none of the others do.

Dekker or McRae.

I would really like to see Dekker one more time. He was just a 3-point shot away from being a fine role player.


Sent from my SM-G965U1 using RealGM mobile app
payitforward
RealGM
Posts: 16,086
And1: 5,135
Joined: May 02, 2012
Location: On the Atlantic

Re: Official Trade Thread -- Part XL 

Post#1613 » by payitforward » Mon Apr 26, 2021 12:58 am

nate33 wrote:
Ruzious wrote:
gambitx777 wrote:https://www.bulletsforever.com/platform/amp/2021/4/23/22396866/washington-wizards-small-forwards-free-agents-glenn-robinson-demarre-carroll-gerald-green-sam-dekker

Sent from my SM-G965U1 using RealGM mobile app

Dekker makes sense to me. Tbh, none of the others do.

Dekker or McRae.

I would really like to see Dekker one more time. He was just a 3-point shot away from being a fine role player.

Well, I'm sure you remember that I wanted to keep Dekker! So for sure, let's see him in a Wiz Uni again!!
Remember -- if you don't like the post above: blame Doc not me.
9 and 20
Sophomore
Posts: 128
And1: 60
Joined: Mar 28, 2021
 

Re: Official Trade Thread -- Part XL 

Post#1614 » by 9 and 20 » Mon Apr 26, 2021 2:29 am

payitforward wrote:
9 and 20 wrote:
Dat2U wrote:...the impact a C has on the defensive side of the ball.... A center is the last line of defense. His on-court impact is significantly tied to his ability to deter or challenge shots....


Basically, this is what I'm trying to say - comparing individual stats for C's doesn't really work - pts, rebounds, assists, whatever. What matters most, I think, is their ability to impact team defense. Maybe not Jokic, but that might be the only exception since he's just that good. I didn't mention blocked shots at all - James Wiseman blocks a lot of shots but almost nobody would say he's a good defender right now.

Read my response to Dat. His points are totally valid. As far as they go -- which is not the whole way.

Everything counts.

Think about it: Thomas Bryant, the exact player, with a lower TS% and/or fewer rebounds is not as good a player as Thomas Bryant with a higher TS% & more rebounds.

The moment you deny this you enter never-never-land where how good a player is depends entirely on what I see when I watch players, because I understand things that you don't understand.


What you call a never never land, I would call a basketball message board - a board that can only exist because there is no absolute mathematical truth in telling how good a player is, at least one that you or I understand fully.

But, fair enough about Thomas Bryant - I understand what you're saying and maybe I'm too eager to replace him with some more like Gafford. Back to more 'trades and transactions.'
Can't say I do.
9 and 20
Sophomore
Posts: 128
And1: 60
Joined: Mar 28, 2021
 

Re: Official Trade Thread -- Part XL 

Post#1615 » by 9 and 20 » Mon Apr 26, 2021 2:46 am

Jordan Macrae was a fun player when he was here. He's better than Hutchison and would be better than some of the 3 guard lineups we're putting out now.
Can't say I do.
User avatar
Nigel Tufnel
Freshman
Posts: 91
And1: 50
Joined: Jul 01, 2010

Re: Official Trade Thread -- Part XL 

Post#1616 » by Nigel Tufnel » Mon Apr 26, 2021 3:30 pm

I don't have the stats acumen of you all, but Bryant going down could be the best possible outcome since it created a need for Gafford. The many ways that Gafford impacts a game do not always show up in the box score, but you can't put a price on how he changes shots, keeps rebounds alive, and plays above the rim. He will be a good contrast with Bryant next year.
Ruzious
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 44,174
And1: 8,883
Joined: Jul 17, 2001
       

Re: Official Trade Thread -- Part XL 

Post#1617 » by Ruzious » Mon Apr 26, 2021 3:40 pm

9 and 20 wrote:Jordan Macrae was a fun player when he was here. He's better than Hutchison and would be better than some of the 3 guard lineups we're putting out now.

I really liked his offensive play here, but he was so injury-prone and looked like he lost a step at the end of the season after he left the Wiz.
"Look, you never know when you may need to borrow a cup of sugar, maybe some milk or a handgun" - Dan C. from Texas
payitforward
RealGM
Posts: 16,086
And1: 5,135
Joined: May 02, 2012
Location: On the Atlantic

Re: Official Trade Thread -- Part XL 

Post#1618 » by payitforward » Mon Apr 26, 2021 3:45 pm

9 and 20 wrote:
payitforward wrote:
9 and 20 wrote:
Basically, this is what I'm trying to say - comparing individual stats for C's doesn't really work - pts, rebounds, assists, whatever. What matters most, I think, is their ability to impact team defense. Maybe not Jokic, but that might be the only exception since he's just that good. I didn't mention blocked shots at all - James Wiseman blocks a lot of shots but almost nobody would say he's a good defender right now.

Read my response to Dat. His points are totally valid. As far as they go -- which is not the whole way.

Everything counts.

Think about it: Thomas Bryant, the exact player, with a lower TS% and/or fewer rebounds is not as good a player as Thomas Bryant with a higher TS% & more rebounds.

The moment you deny this you enter never-never-land where how good a player is depends entirely on what I see when I watch players, because I understand things that you don't understand.


What you call a never never land, I would call a basketball message board - a board that can only exist because there is no absolute mathematical truth in telling how good a player is, at least one that you or I understand fully....'

:)
I'd say it's more that there actually is no such abstract entity as "how good a player is."

As to the differing kinds of metrics one can employ, to me they are "accurate" (of interest, worth paying attention to) exactly to the degree that their results can be correlated with a team's win-loss record. To that degree they are useful.

What this means is that to assess a system of metrics, you don't compare it to "reality;" you compare it to other such methodologies. If it correlates to wins/losses better than some other methodology, then it's "better" than that other methodology. Period.

9 and 20 wrote:But, fair enough about Thomas Bryant - I understand what you're saying and maybe I'm too eager to replace him with some more like Gafford. Back to more 'trades and transactions.'

Assuming both guys are the players we've seen so far (obviously it's easier to be certain about that in Bryant's case than in Gafford's), & assuming we had to choose between them, could only keep one of the two, then I keep Gafford -- how not?

But, we don't need to choose between them. So I'm keeping both guys -- unless someone makes an outlandish offer for 1 of them.
Remember -- if you don't like the post above: blame Doc not me.
payitforward
RealGM
Posts: 16,086
And1: 5,135
Joined: May 02, 2012
Location: On the Atlantic

Re: Official Trade Thread -- Part XL 

Post#1619 » by payitforward » Mon Apr 26, 2021 4:17 pm

9 and 20 wrote:Jordan MacRae was a fun player when he was here. He's better than Hutchison and would be better than some of the 3 guard lineups we're putting out now.

I liked McRae coming out of college, & he was a terrific low-price pickup for the Wizards. He's also a really nice "human" story: McRae was the #58 pick in 2014. He's made the most of it! Assuming he's surrounded by competent advisors, he's now a young man with millions of dollars in the bank!

I watched him immediately after that draft -- above all b/c it was the Spurs that picked him, & the Spurs are a team that knows what it's doing in the draft. He didn't work out there & wound up at Cleveland where he had at least a couple of outstanding games.

I was delighted when we picked him up. Apparently he was also a very popular teammate on the Wiz.

But I wouldn't want him over Chandler Hutchison.

CH fully 5 years younger than McRae. He was good in college & had a very good rookie year in 2018-19 -- it wouldn't be an enormous surprise for him to work out as a productive NBA journeyman.

Don't get me wrong: I'd trade Hutchison for a R2 pick! But, he's more a valuable asset than Jordan McRae.
Remember -- if you don't like the post above: blame Doc not me.
payitforward
RealGM
Posts: 16,086
And1: 5,135
Joined: May 02, 2012
Location: On the Atlantic

Re: Official Trade Thread -- Part XL 

Post#1620 » by payitforward » Mon Apr 26, 2021 4:23 pm

Nigel Tufnel wrote:I don't have the stats acumen of you all...

I have an excellent Pin-the-Tail-on-the-Donkey wall chart I'd sell you cheap. It works for me...!

Nigel Tufnel wrote:...Bryant going down could be the best possible outcome since it created a need for Gafford. The many ways that Gafford impacts a game do not always show up in the box score, but you can't put a price on how he changes shots, keeps rebounds alive, and plays above the rim. He will be a good contrast with Bryant next year.

Gafford's box score numbers are over the top great! For sure he was an absolutely brilliant pick up!
Remember -- if you don't like the post above: blame Doc not me.

Return to Washington Wizards