Chinook wrote:There are still going to be folks who think Anderson is better than DeRozan. He's not. Kyle's not better; he's not "more impactful", and he doesn't "contribute more to winning". And I love Kyle and wanted the Spurs to keep him. But there are just arguments that defy any reason, and asserting guys like DeRozan and Aldridge are neutral or net-negative players is one of those.
codydaze wrote:Wait, there were actual people saying Kyle Anderson was better than Derozan? I'm a huge Anderson fan but that's just incredibly wrong.
Topher wrote:lolwut
Essentially before the latest rash of injuries, some people who saw the Spurs' win projections argued that Anderson and Green more than canceled out DeRozan. Furthermore, stats like RPM comparatively love Anderson, and when asked to explain how a stat can have a guy like Kyle as being the better player, some folks ether doubled down ("Anderson IS the better player") or used other terms like "more impactful" to essentially say the same thing.
I'm just restating more definitively that there isn't a way to interpret any data to define Anderson as better than DeRozan. Stats that say otherwise need to be tweaked numerically, because there's isn't a level of head-canon that can really make someone believe that to be true. Not only is DeMar better in a vacuum, but on a generic team, he would be better. You're more likely to win games with DeRozan on your team than Anderson. You're closer to winning a title with DeRozan rather than Anderson. In the playoffs, I'd rather have DeRozan. In the "modern game", I'd rather have DeRozan. I hate that I even have to say that, but I do.
