Player of the Game #10 (Hornets @ Wizards)

[FAH1223]

10-7 now.

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Tally of POTGs
Kuzma x2
Porzingis x2
Avdija x1
Barton x1
Beal x1
Goodwin x1
Kispert x1

[montestewart]

Kuzma and Beal are the high scoring obvious choices, and I liked some of the things they did but they both had glaring shortcomings too. Going with Avdija, with Kispert a close second. Goodwin, 3 blocks!

[JWizmentality]

Kuzma for giving us a nice cushion to start the 4th.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

Dennys

I’m eating late and perhaps this play on words is more than a gut feeling. It’s hunger related.

Deni Advidja with 13 rebounds and consistent effort gets my vote.

[Frichuela]

Dennys

I’m eating late and perhaps this play on words is more than a gut feeling. It’s hunger related.

Deni Advidja with 13 rebounds and consistent effort gets my vote.

Hear hear. Deni is for me too. Kuzma had a strong Q4 but his defensive inconsistencies and turnovers exasperated me.

[payitforward]

Deni did play well, to be sure.
But, Corey Kispert gets my vote for the 2d game in a row:
1. 14 points on 7 shots & 4 FTAs
2. Zero turnovers & zero fouls.
3. Solid rebounding, etc.

[WallToWall]

What about KP? He had a bad offensive game, but look at his defense. Credited with 5 blocks, 4/19 DFG. I counted at least 6 altered and missed shots, and 4 “bothered” passes which led to turnovers. (BTW, is there a place that keeps these sorts of measurements?) His defensive presence is just as good as those with comparable offensive presence.
That said Kuzma gets the nod for me. He seemed to have a more complete game, led in scoring, with just enough of a defensive presence.

[Halcyon]

Kuzma. Although pretty much the entire starting lineup was key in the victory in different ways. KP despite his shooting, had tremendous interior presence on the defensive end, and Brad was pretty disruptive with his 5 steals, despite his 5 TOs. Kispert and Deni were also very important in the W.

In terms of LVPs, Gafford continues to struggle with rebounding (Nick Richards manhandled him on the boards) and Barton is ice cold. No idea if they are tradeable, but they are not playing well at all.

[montestewart]

Deni did play well, to be sure.
But, Corey Kispert gets my vote for the 2d game in a row:
1. 14 points on 7 shots & 4 FTAs
2. Zero turnovers & zero fouls.
3. Solid rebounding, etc.

I’ve had Kispert second two games in a row. I wonder if I’m undervaluing him? Regardless of numbers, he is an active, hustling player, moving without the ball, fighting not to lose his man on D, etc. These attributes don’t always directly translate into individual stats (his +/- has been good), but they are things I give Avdija and Goodwin credit for, beyond their stats. Gibson too.

[montestewart]

Deni did play well, to be sure.
But, Corey Kispert gets my vote for the 2d game in a row:
1. 14 points on 7 shots & 4 FTAs
2. Zero turnovers & zero fouls.
3. Solid rebounding, etc.

I’ve had Kispert second two games in a row. I wonder if I’m undervaluing him? Regardless of numbers, he is an active, hustling player, moving without the ball, fighting not to lose his man on D, etc. These attributes don’t always directly translate into individual stats (his +/- has been good), but they are things I give Avdija and Goodwin credit for, beyond their stats. Gibson too.

[payitforward]

Deni did play well, to be sure.
But, Corey Kispert gets my vote for the 2d game in a row:
1. 14 points on 7 shots & 4 FTAs
2. Zero turnovers & zero fouls.
3. Solid rebounding, etc.

I’ve had Kispert second two games in a row. I wonder if I’m undervaluing him? Regardless of numbers, he is an active, hustling player, moving without the ball, fighting not to lose his man on D, etc. These attributes don’t always directly translate into individual stats (his +/- has been good), but they are things I give Avdija and Goodwin credit for, beyond their stats. Gibson too.

IMO, fans way over-rate "how many points did he score" -- independent of number of possessions required to score those points & independent of the guy's effect on how many possessions the team has -- i.e. how many chances to score.

Thus, giving the current POTG to Kuzma: yes, he had an outstanding game scoring the ball, he rebounded well too -- & he had 5 assists! Terrific, all of that.

If he hadn't turned the ball over 4 times, he'd have gotten my vote over Kispert. But... he did. & if you're trying to assess how much a player contributed to a game, you can't put your thumb over a stat you don't like!

Don't get me wrong here -- Kuz had a really good game -- even w/ the TOs! But, they did happen, & taking everything into account Kispert had an even better game overall than Kuzma did.

Worth mentioning that Beal had an outstanding first half then cooled off. & of course Avdija was quite good too.

[DCZards]

Going with Kuz. 28 pts, 10 Rebs & 5 dimes. Above 50% on 2s, 50% on 3s. Scored in a variety of ways. Need to cutdown on those turnovers though. He had 4 of them, including 2 traveling calls...one of which was bogus.

[nate33]

I watched a replay today.

I'm going with Beal for POTG. He played nearly perfect basketball through the first 3 quarters. He missed a few in the fourth, but by that time, he had drawn so much defensive attention that two of his missed ended up with easy offensive rebound follow-ups. I also liked the D he played, particularly in the 1st half.

Kuzma may have had slightly better stats, but Beal was doing it as the #1 option with all the defensive attention, particularly since Porzingis shot so poorly.

Deni and Kuzma were both very good as well. And Kispert was extremely efficient again, but on fairly low volume.

[payitforward]

I thought Beal had a tremendous first half. But, overall, I find it hard to think of him as potg.

Thing is, if you look at the right side of his boxscore, obviously the benefit of 5 steals is cancelled by 5 TOs, which leaves 5 assists & 4 fouls, which are pretty close to nullifying each other as well.

He did have 4 defensive boards, but 26 points on 22 shots & 2 FTAs, while good, is nothing special.

Overall, Kuz had far better stats -- i.e. not "slightly better." & Kispert was even a bit better. I.e. you can't look at Kuz's line & just ignore the turnovers. Or, rather, if you do, it's an example of what I said is a problem -- at least from my POV -- in how we assess player performance: way too much emphasis on "how many points did he score...." YMMV.

[DCZards]

I thought Beal had a tremendous first half. But, overall, I find it hard to think of him as potg.

Thing is, if you look at the right side of his boxscore, obviously the benefit of 5 steals is cancelled by 5 TOs, which leaves 5 assists & 4 fouls, which are pretty close to nullifying each other as well.

He did have 4 defensive boards, but 26 points on 22 shots & 2 FTAs, while good, is nothing special.

Overall, Kuz had far better stats -- i.e. not "slightly better." & Kispert was even a bit better. I.e. you can't look at Kuz's line & just ignore the turnovers. Or, rather, if you do, it's an example of what I said is a problem -- at least from my POV -- in how we assess player performance: way too much emphasis on "how many points did he score...." YMMV.

PIF, you seem to always suggest that other posters only look at points when evaluating a player's performance. You ought to give us more credit than that.

[payitforward]

Didn't mean to suggest that, Zards.

Only that, in general, "how many points" is over-rated. Probably I should have left out the word "way" in the last bit you quote.

Moreover, in this case, Kuz scored 28 points very efficiently! His TS% was .693 -- & on high usage. That's tremendous!

Even considering 4 turnovers he had a very good game. I certainly didn't mean to criticize his outing. Only to point to the reasons I rated Kispert's game even higher.

[doclinkin]

Didn't mean to suggest that, Zards.

Only that, in general, "how many points" is over-rated.

Not jumping into an argument, just a thing that occurred to me.

I'd say points are over-'valued', in a literal sense. Studies show that scorers get paid. Because of that, high usage/high volume scorers are more useful assets than they might seem to the stat heads. Fans look at raw numbers to assess whether a trade looks good. Apparently management does as well, since somebody keeps paying these players. They make good trade pieces at the least.

I wonder about that though. Gilbert Arenas once said something to that effect about defensive players, something like: all that defense is nice, but somebody has to score the ball. I think you can say the same thing about many of the high efficiency standouts. They can float to the top in part because they are the pilot fish nibbling up the scraps left by the big sharks. Or medium sharks like Kuzma.

Like: A guy like Corey Kispert can have a sleek smooth clean stat line in part because opposing teams know he's only going to shoot a few times a game. They are not game-planning specifically to deny him the ball. Where Kuzma is going to get many more touches and opportunities to mess up. In a way I think you almost have to weight those performances higher when thinking about who had the best effect in a game. Kuzma scoring well while the defense is trying to stop him is a harder thing to do, and while there is no degree-of-difficulty in the box score, it does show up in that it makes it possible for others to score more easily and efficiently.

Has there ever been a team that won a mess of games primarily by distributing the ball evenly to high-efficiency role players? If not, it makes me wonder if efficiency itself is overrated. I know it is heresy. But is it possible that you gotta have gunners almost as a decoy to allow the other players to get free? Maybe no team has ever really tried it.

I voted Kuzma in part because this is how I want him to consistently play. Efficient in the face of the defense (or whatever passes for defense by the Hornets) while still keeping others involved, and putting in effort on the defensive boards. I'll take a few turnovers knowing he is playing as an oversized point guard with all of our supposed playmakers in street clothes. He is performing his role, and theirs as well. Given that Porzingis had a sub-par game on offense, somebody had to be willing to carry the load. Kuzma had the stones to step up, and for this game at least performed very well.

[payitforward]

You make a solid point, doc. &, in fact, a player who can add usage while keeping his TS% up is an exception. We call that guy "a star." & those guys definitely get paid for that ability!

To put it another way -- if Kuz could post a .693 TS% every night on the usage he had two nights ago, he'd be a superstar.

Yet, in my mind (i.e. objectively), what kept him from being potg -- a glorious award I know he must treasure each time his agent, who no doubt follows the board closely, lets him know he's won it! -- was the 4 turnovers.

For that matter, since games are decided by one thing only -- who has more points on the scoreboard when the game ends -- it's perfectly easy to understand why a casual consideration would make one think that whoever scored the most points contributed the most to the win. &... sometimes it's true! But, obviously, not always.

[montestewart]

I thought Beal had a tremendous first half. But, overall, I find it hard to think of him as potg.

Thing is, if you look at the right side of his boxscore, obviously the benefit of 5 steals is cancelled by 5 TOs, which leaves 5 assists & 4 fouls, which are pretty close to nullifying each other as well.

He did have 4 defensive boards, but 26 points on 22 shots & 2 FTAs, while good, is nothing special.

Overall, Kuz had far better stats -- i.e. not "slightly better." & Kispert was even a bit better. I.e. you can't look at Kuz's line & just ignore the turnovers. Or, rather, if you do, it's an example of what I said is a problem -- at least from my POV -- in how we assess player performance: way too much emphasis on "how many points did he score...." YMMV.

PIF, you seem to always suggest that other posters only look at points when evaluating a player's performance. You ought to give us more credit than that.

I think the issue of overvaluing scoring initially arose here in PIF’s response to my post about undervaluing Kispert. I voted for Avdija, with Kispert second, and only meant that I might be undervaluing Kispert compared to Avdija, Goodwin, and other hustle players. It sort of felt like a non sequitur.

I like doc’s take on possibly underrating high scorers. The higher usage player that opposing teams plan defense around, that takes the double teams, that makes something happen when nothing else is working, and often gets beat up in the process, that player may be doing a lot more than his individual stats show (Curry is even better than his stats!), drawing the attention of defenses and creating spaces and opportunities for his teammates. I don’t know how you quantify that, and I don’t even know if it’s true, but we’ve all seen games over the years in which a high-volume, high scoring player took over the game, carried the team on his back to victory, and had a very inefficient stat line.

Re doc’s wondering about a team composed of high efficiency players sharing the ball relatively equally, I’ve never really seen that done as a plan, but I recall some years back when the Houston Rockets were dealing with injuries to McGrady and Yao. The remaining team proceeded to have one of the longest win streaks in NBA history. They had no high usage players left, so largely higher efficiency, lower usage players made that happen.

It seems like something that a number of college teams have probably tried out of necessity. Someone smarter than me might want to look at how those teams fared. Maybe there’s something to that.

Even players sometimes express a desire for positionless basketball, with every player expected to cover multiple positions on defense, share the ball on offense, be ready to score. and generally play selflessly. Maybe they’re just expressing an ideal they are incapable of achieving.

[B8RcDeMktfxC]

What about KP? He had a bad offensive game, but look at his defense. Credited with 5 blocks, 4/19 DFG. I counted at least 6 altered and missed shots, and 4 “bothered” passes which led to turnovers. (BTW, is there a place that keeps these sorts of measurements?) His defensive presence is just as good as those with comparable offensive presence.
That said Kuzma gets the nod for me. He seemed to have a more complete game, led in scoring, with just enough of a defensive presence.

Not just for KP, but this kind of stuff is what the box-score completely misses. People who base their views on, idk 6ast-x-4TO, eg, are completely clueless.